http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/29/ultra-orthodox-attacks-on-israel-s-women-linked-to-arab-inequality.html Not just that, you can goto Brooklyn or Amish communities, basically any real conservative communities of all religions throughout the world and find it to be a backward state of women...so your point is pretty sad and just based on the one that is publicized more. When you say Muslims are doing all that? Is it really them, or is it really more middle eastern/africa and those countries. I've seen muslims here in the states and canada born adn raise who consider themselves devout, yet the women are fee and they are progressive, yet they are still are' devout'. So once again, it goes down to regional/culture/sect rather than your invalid painting of just 'muslims'. You must admit it, I do agree that there is oppression, esepcially in the middle east, but you signle out one, when it is bad, but so are all the scriptures. You have to say all the monothiestic religions are bad towards women, they all are horrible in many ways. The way people interpret em for good and bad and ignore one part of another determine how htey act in my opinion. Go Athiesm and science!
The level to which the blog post was heartfelt is debatable (I dont know the person and really cant judge the veracity of anything they say....). A thoughtful, academic inquiry on the meaning of the Quran, it is certainly not. As for the OP's article, what is it that you find objectionable? There are a number of reports published that corroborate the general sentiment in the OP's article, including one produced by the European Network Against Racism (ENAR) which can be accessed at this link. I dont think its unreasonable to assume that ATW's living in a country that accepts prejudicial discourse in its mainstream has not impacted his views on Islam and Muslims in some way. In response to your objection on the potential for violent hermeneutics, I would argue that the overwhelming majority of mainstream muslims would object to the mere possibility that any human being with basic intellectual faculties could interpret it in that manner. Rather, it would be sanctioning violence in specific instances, and those instances would have to meet a moral/ethical end (preservation of life, intellect, property). This also begs the question about how much Islamist terrorism is generated solely as a result of that misinterpretation (ie, did the misinterpretation cause terrorism, or did terrorism bring about the misinterpretation). Your last point is really the heart of the debate, which is more or less your atheism and utter contempt for religions. The following table is a link of wars that have been conducted with American involvement from Colonial Times until the present (safe to say that none have been religiously motivated): http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelineuswars.htm Human history has always registered more years of conflict than tranquility (a point made quite fervently by Hitchens in one of his last essays advocating endless war), and saying that "even 1 death in the name of a religion is too many. It is needless and unnecessary." is nice as a platitude, but unrealistic when it comes to the nature of man and conflict. Anyways, I live on the east coast and its late, so I'm out.
DonnyMost, if is one death in the name of religion too many, is one death in the name of anything too many? For the sake of consistency, I would think you would agree with the former you would agree with the latter, unless you believe that a death in the name of religion is somehow worse than a death for any other unjust reason. So, if you believe that one death for any reason is too many and that anyone who kills someone in the name of anything demonstrates that their cause is retrograde, what causes or beliefs are there left that aren't retrograde, outdated and toxic? Tons of people have been killed needlessly in the name of US security and stability, people were killed by the USSR in the name of the state, people have been killed for the sake of moral codes, and by people believing the in no moral codes, in the sake of religious belief and in the sake of no religion. Various belief systems or beliefs other than the Abrahamic faiths have been used as rationales for needless and unjustified killing. Why stop there? This leaves me wondering are there any causes you can support, what are the beliefs left that you can hold, and what sets religion apart for you? I wonder why limit your anger to deaths that have been purportedly caused and justified by Abrahamic religions?
Northside, that's just wildly off-base. I don't think you can lump all those things together. As far as ATW is concerned, I can't recall a post of his that implied that he was a homophobe. And while he certainly appreciates a fine looking woman, I don't think that he's alone in that. Most of the guys here, me included, to say the least, appreciate a fine looking woman. But I don't recall a post of his that attacked women and women's rights. In fact, he usually uses that as part of his argument against radical Islam, doesn't he? That they repress women and the Gay community? Am I wrong about that? One can disagree with the views of another on a particular subject, and not on other subjects. That happens to me all the time. When we use a broad brush, we often end up painting ourselves into a corner. And I often agree with posts of some of the more "far-right" members here in other forums, like Hangout and the GARM. basso sometimes makes good posts in Hangout, and has made a few nice posts in the GARM, although they're rare. He usually doesn't post in the basketall forums, but I suspect that he reads them. Commodore has posted some good things in Hangout and in the GARM, and I frequently agree with his GARM posts. Sadly, both drive me crazy in D&D. What can you do? Use a smaller brush. I have the same phobia, and no, I don't know of one religion that doesn't have its weird and bat**** crazy element.
I think the argument is that since no one has said "I'm killing these people in the name of Atheism!!", then that means no one has really done so. This methodology doesn't take into account (for example) an atheist religion-hating government which takes inappropriate measures to enact secular policies in an aggressive anti-religious manner. I don't blame an atheist for thinking this kind of stuff doesn't happen, because these kinds of crimes are usually done by atheists in less-atheistic geographic regions than they live and they publicly appear as (for example) Muslims or Jews. So chalk that one up to the Muslims, because it's obviously Muslims' fault that they can't stop a corrupt individual from hijacking a few words of vocabulary. Also, by nature, atheism is not associative. Meaning, there is no group and/or religion called atheism, and atheists acknowledge that. Although Muslims (for example) similarly dissociate themselves from the actions of strangers who self-label themselves as Muslims, its obviously totally different. So if you take all that out of the picture, and play by the boundaries and rules prescribed by an average atheist, then he is right, no one kills in the name of the absence of a religion.
This presupposes that all 'unjust' things are equal. Which just isn't so. Some things can bring about violence and death as a by-product unnecessarily, and some do not. Plenty. Nobody has killed anybody in the name of being more peaceful or reasonable. That's a cause I can stand behind 100%. Yes, and? None of that justifies anything. (p.s. the amount of violence done in the name of each of those things is not nearly equal across the board... in as such, the perfect should never be the enemy of the good.) Because, quite simply, no good or noble deed ever done on this earth couldn't have been done without religion. Ergo, the moral utility and necessity of religion is completely moot.
Damn straight. No one has *ever* killed anyone in the name of, or under inspiration of, the lack of a belief in god. Dubya tee eff. WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT. Well, yeah dude. That's what happens when you join a religion. Especially one that is open to interpretation. Causes all kinds of splintering and whatnots. If you believe in being a good person, what the hell do you need Islam for to validate that opinion since it has so many other facets you disagree with? 100% correct. It is impossible to do so. You can kill in the name of being an *******, a bigot, a racist, a misogynist, etc. But the next time anybody kills anyone in the name of atheism will be the first.
While reasonable, you realize that America is the home of televangelists and insanely wealthy prosperity gospel peddlers? Our worst outshadows our best, and through that lens, it's easy to apply it to other religions that are backward to "ours" while filtering out any cultural or regional context. Well it's never that simple. I think Islamist terrorism and its survival comes from secular opportunities. There will always be non-active participants that aid and abed players within their midst. I don't believe it's a religious imperative, rather more similar to the circumstances of political terrorism such as Ireland, Spain or Colombia. When conditions improve, those people are less likely to have fanatics in their backyard blowing/shooting things up within 500 feet. There will always be bat**** hardcore lunatic groups that will pursue religious cleansing, but their popularity is highly debateable if it's all about religion alone. Groups like Hamas segue into the only other political party, or an infrastructure to deliver charity or critical goods, or even a protection racket to counte a highly corrupt government. When they dance those lines, then it's more likely they'll need to use religion as a shroud for legitimacy and unifying principles rather than as a driving cause.
I'm jumping into the thick of things, but the "one death too many" line is pretty damn unreasonable. People can justify anything after the fact...heavy metal made me kill!!... but sometimes the simplest explanation is that they're crazy. I'd be more pissed off at the jurors who allow people to get away with murder for illogical reasons. It happens, but even then you can still frame it culturally, like the Joe Horn fiasco. It's called pre-emptive war. People are suckers. His point is that we'd still kill over stupid things without religion...Communism vs. Democracy. My imaginary line vs theirs. That's a point that you can't reconcile. Call religion silly, roundaboutly narcissistic with a masochist twist, or archaic. But don't hide behind some idealistic high ground that doesn't add up in reality. It's like being a libertarian who thinks the government is the bane of all evil and every solution to every problem begins with the end of government. It doesn't add up, and it doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. Yet many people still justify their good or noble deeds through religion. They could've easily hogged all the credit for themselves, but they don't. Ergo, cognito, et cetera et cetera. Everything is always open to interpretation. We don't think in binary. I like to think organized religion is training wheels for a mind wanting to expand and know what's more in the world. Some people aren't ready to take them off. Others think there isn't a need to ride whatever religion is trying to convince you to ride. Fair enough, but thousands of years of some damn brilliant people have added to our history and spent all their lives thinking of meaning many of us have not considered or have taken for granted. That record is just as important as our scientific progress and just as significant to how much humanity has and will grow. The notion of any of that is a waste of time is damn silly in a culture that likes to plant their asses and watch whatever's on at the moment and comment about it to as many people as they can in any way or method they can possibly consider. Oh yeah, we're sooo much better those outdated fools and their archaic rituals.
Of course. Reasonable doubt plays a part in it. And also, if heavy metal is a religion, that'd be news to me. Two wrongs. Look for the motive. Three wrongs. Going to war for peace is like f***ing for virginity. Yes, and I've heard this line of reasoning a thousand times, and it's still as wrong as ever. Just because someone out there is crazy enough to kill people for no good reason does not justify giving less crazy people impetus to kill. And yet they could have performed those deeds without relying on any kind of ambiguous religion as well. Net loss by relying on religion to justify goodness. True, but the perfect is not the enemy of the good. We can do better than what we have. I do not deny this and have thoroughly explained this phenomenon multiple times on this BBS. Four wrongs! P.S. I'll take people sitting on their ass in front of the TV watching Jersey Shore over genocide or ritual sacrifice any day. Yes, we very much are. Very, very , VERY much so.
The point is people react to religion in different ways. Maybe we can cram it all in an hour with some CSI montages while you're at it. Hmm, someone wrote: Nobody has killed anybody in the name of being more peaceful Maybe it's only me, I don't think you can evade with "ulterior motives" when you've Wronged my replies that had the same context. We're going by facts and what's stated on the record, yes? Leaders declare that they're fighting for peace. WW2 veterans say they did. Snarky replies are best left ambiguously open... I'm not justifying anything here. It's my conclusion that we'd kill just as much with or without Zeus hurling bolts from above. I'm not idealizing an improbable fantasy and using it as an underpinning to my moral worldview. I don't see how it's a net loss because they were compelled to do good. I haven't seen your reasoning for ignoring the good while focusing on the bad when you've clearly dismissed the insane minority as dragging down religion's reputation, but you should explain yourself out of proper etiquette. I can safely guess that you're relying Dawkins and Hitchens' arguments, but they're incredibly slanted and those books left out reasonable corollaries in order to rush their readers to judgement or self confirmation. Just throwing that out. I don't understand what that means. If you slap some links, I'll read them. Then the terrorists have won. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6sdVx5gQz6w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It would be non-sensical to make a statement like that. Who even talks like that other than Muslims? That's my point. If a person is killing due to a belief that there is no God and therefore could have an anti-religion bias directly attributable to his/her atheism >> this person is killing in the name of atheism, even if they don't announce it in the precise way that Muslims do. In Islam, it is a relic of ancient war strategy which was employed by Arab Muslims because they were in the process of assembling one of the largest empires in history. They were claiming their victories in foreign territories by dedicating them to God - not unusual at all for any religion which fueled invasions of foreign territories. No its not. First of all, some people don't join at all. They're just born into it, and then their morality is largely controlled and developed by their parents. Secondly, you have not explained why it's ok to judge people differently due to their moral belief system. You've just re-stated it and added your opinion that "that's what happens when you join a religion". As for what someone would need Islam for, I don't know, that's unique to each individual person. Some people need it, some people don't, some people are leaving and some people are joining. It's none of my business. IMO Islam is an old then-revolutionary revision of human rights. If we look at them now, they are obviously horrendous, as would any human rights list thousands of years ago. But if we look at them in context, for example: polygamy. Prophet declared that a Muslim can have four wives. The context is: everyone had more than four wives, people were burying females at birth, people were trading their children for food, there was massive massive massive income disparity due to concentration of power, etc. This was a rule which was essentially aimed at REDUCING polygamy, which is why it is coupled with key Quranic verses regarding rights of spouses, children, orphans, slaves, adopted children, endowment, etc. Treatment of every single one of those groups improved as a result of Islamic values. I would even argue to say that the world is headed towards polygamy because at some point in the not so distant future it will be determined that consenting adults can marry whoever they want. Is a future where Muslims are fighting for 4 maximum and non-Muslims are fighting for unlimited, really out of the question? Again, saying it means nothing it. Saying it is just a habit of Arab terrorists. It doesn't make anyone more or less of a terrorist. The point is: it still wouldn't matter. There is still evidence, proof, a weapon, a murderer and a victim. The habits of a terrorist have no bearing at all on whether atheists can be equally aggressive in their pursuit of their own personal beliefs which so happen to be widely shared among this individualistic group of peopel called atheists. I thought you held secular values? Wouldn't that mean indifference towards religion in such cases, rather than actually placing value in the religious rituals of murderers which can't be traced to a book whose author doesn't exist to you?
Post did not necessarily even refer to ATW or Commodore, just merely a broad brush to counter another unnecessarily broad brush assertion about "leftists". if ATW feels like he falls under that general category that I described, then so be it. I don't particularly have an opinion on that, but I think he's a cheerleader for one side of the debate, and I've made that clear. The rest, eh. However, I'm not going to go out of my way to assuage ATW in any way.
How do you describe the "sides of the debate" the voices in your head are telling you about? Describe the "one side" and "the other side".
well, one side are the rational people who don't resort to personal insults at every turn like a child, and who have consistent, logical frameworks for their viewpoints. the other side, well, they just like to hate on one topic so much that they will derail threads, stalk users and bring out their personal details, post incessantly about this one topic, resort to insults when confronted, or worst comes to worst, pretend they're drunk. and through it all, they don't even consistently follow ANY logic. they throw it out there that they're opposed to any ideology that could be interpreted to be violent...but then, no they're not or they won't say they're not anyways. they don't make any sense, even I suppose, to themselves. that's what the voices in my head tell me. figure out what side you're on.
