Taking a Stand Against Islam

[cybercoma]

Believing that the whole world would be better off if no one believed is no different from those who believe the whole world would be better off if only everyone believed in their God.

It's not a belief, it's a conclusive thought based on empirical evidence.

I could believe children would be better off having their thoughts warped by insisting fairytales are truth and if they don't believe in them they're going to be tormented for eternity.

Or I could say, that's not a very nice thing to do to children and perhaps those who do these things should be criticized by society.

To say those two things are no different is completely wrong.

[cybercoma]

I guess where we're different is that I feel it's ok to criticize someone's beliefs and you think that it's wrong. We criticize politicians, scientists, and corporate executives, but as soon as it comes to religion, their ideas are supposed to be exempt from criticism or rational examination. Not only do I think this is naive, but I feel it's outright dangerous to unthinkingly accept illogical conclusions.

[Guest American Woman]

I guess where we're different is that I feel it's ok to criticize someone's beliefs and you think that it's wrong. We criticize politicians, scientists, and corporate executives, but as soon as it comes to religion, their ideas are supposed to be exempt from criticism or rational examination. Not only do I think this is naive, but I feel it's outright dangerous to unthinkingly accept illogical conclusions.

First of all, if you think it's ok to criticize someone for their beliefs, you are no different from the religious who criticize you for not believing, and that is what has been my point all along. We can criticize politicians and corporate executives because their actions/beliefs are concrete. Religion is a set of beliefs. So either you are tolerant of others personal beliefs or you are critical, and why you would be critical of someone believing is beyond me.

You don't have to accept any religious beliefs. That's your personal choice. But to expect others to do the same, to say the world would be a better place if only everyone believed what you believe, is to prove the quote I previously cited 100% correct.

Furthermore, you are totally arrogant in your belief that religious people "unthinkingly" accept what you see as "illogical conclusions." Where do you get of saying people believe "unthinkingly?" As for "illogical conclusions," illogical according to you.

Once again you prove that you are no different from the extremist religious sect that thinks everyone should believe exactly what they believe.

It's not a belief, it's a conclusive thought based on empirical evidence.

I could believe children would be better off having their thoughts warped by insisting fairytales are truth and if they don't believe in them they're going to be tormented for eternity.

Or I could say, that's not a very nice thing to do to children and perhaps those who do these things should be criticized by society.

To say those two things are no different is completely wrong.

It's a belief based on what you perceive as evidence. People of faith believe what they believe perceived on what they see as evidence.

Your example is nothing but your take on religion, your beliefs, and as such, there absolutely is no difference; what you are saying is no different from the fundamentally religious saying you are a pagen and unfit parent for not teaching your child to obey the laws of "God" because your children will suffer an eternity in Hell because of your negligence for not teaching them their beliefs.

It's your belief that religion is a fairy tale. It's your belief (and misconception) that parents who believe in God are all telling their children they are going to be tormented for eternity if they don't follow the word of "God."

It's one thing not to believe in God. It's quite another not to be tolerant of others' belief and to claim that religion does this that and the other thing because that's how you perceive it; to say everyone should put aside their beliefs and think only what you believe because then the world would be a better place. If you can't see yourself in the quote I cited, then I guess it's true that there are none so blind as he who will not see.

Edited March 19, 2008 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

If you're coming at me from the standpoint of "the only reality is the one you make for yourself", then nothing is concrete and there is absolutely no relevance in anything; therefore, nothing can be real or true, which makes the belief in God even more outlandish.

[DogOnPorch]

To many, I think, the Universe is a VERY scary place and only the belief that their existence somehow means something in all this vastness will quell that fear.

Take this picture....

That's M109 (aka NGC 3992) a type SBc (barred spiral) galaxy...about 55 million light years distant. A near twin of the Milky Way with large areas of new star formation. For those who failed science, that means the light that reaches us now left that galaxy 55 million years ago in the Eocene period. New star formation means solar systems like our own are being created out of interstellar dust and gas as we speak/write.

There's a statistically excellent chance that another alien civilization is looking back at us...or has looked back at us...or will look back at us from that or any number of galaxies. There are many fold more galaxies than the hundreds of billions stars in our own galaxy. Planets are turning out to be VERY common aound other stars...and water (in one of its three states) is turning up in the oddest places (deep craters on the Moon for example). Science tells us this...not religion. What does religion have to say re: M109 and the chances of life elsewhere? Have faith...you're still made in G*d's image?

That's why I tend towards science and existentialism...I don't have to make round pegs fit into square holes.

Edit: Just out today... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...et-methane.html

-----------------------------------------

Gazing up into the darkness I saw myself as a creature driven and derided by vanity; and my eyes burned with anguish and anger.

---James Joyce

Edited March 20, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[Brain Candy]

Their are two extremes of thought that man tends to: individual moments and infinity. While both are interesting to observe and draw experience and inspiration from, I think as mankind currently stands its more realistic to look somewhere in between to plan your life and what you want to leave behind for the future. If you spend your life wrapped up in moments reality will eventually kick your ass. If you spend your life gazing off to the stars you will be inspired but you will eventually have to return to reality or you will totally disconnect from it and go insane even if you're a genius like Nietzsche.

Edited March 22, 2008 by Brain Candy

[manasketa]

Is it possible to live in a world without religion and gods? Absolutely. Is it possible to live without a belief or assumption of some sort? I would be very interested to see that.

While atheism is not a religion, it is a worldview or paradigm, with a set of assumptions. Religions, although they come with gods and explicit moral codes, are likewise embedded in a paradigm, with other such assumptions. How would atheists like it if I questioned the fundamental goodness of democracy, or individual rights? I am not condoning stoning or other practices, I am just pointing out the fact that atheists stand much in the same place as do religious folk, and are subject to the same problem of fanaticism.

If this woman sought to embed islam within a more modern worldview with more equal rights for the traditionally underprivileged, good for her. IMO, we could all use more humanism.

[Army Guy]

Dropping religion from ones life is not going to solve anything, in the large scope of things. It may seem to make ones life that much more uncomplicated, but it will be replaced by something else....

And although Religion can be blamed for alot of violence around the world, dropping religion does not mean all of a sudden we will be sitting around the camp fire holding hands and singing "WE ARE WORLD", before that happens we need to get rid of alot more than religion.

[WIP]

Aside from Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, there aren't many prominent atheists who believe that the majority of people who leave organized religion will give up all forms of supernatural belief. If Western Europe is an example, the decline of the Anglican, Catholic and Lutheran churches has been accompanied by a rise in New Age spiritualism, psychics, astrology etc.. Religion does not provide satisfying answers that stand up to scrutiny, but the religious worldview has been with us since prehistoric times and is the more natural way for the majority to understand the world than the scientific method for finding answers.

Second point: any belief system that claims to have some form of transcendent knowledge that must be accepted has the potential to create carnage. Karl Marx claimed to have a "science of history" and social class that could not be disputed. His most ardent followers are responsible for the greatest genocides in modern times!

The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia were not bad communists, but instead were the most idealistic Marxists who had determined that the city dwellers had to be exterminated since they could not be re-moulded in to a dependable proletarian class.

The Reign of Terror in France was carried out by Jacobin deists who believed in a non-intervening God and claimed to be following a path of reason -- which, unfortunately led them to the conclusion that they had to chop the heads off of everyone who was standing in the way of the Age of Reason!

And if Ayn Rand's followers in the Objectivist Movement could fill more than the average living room, they would probably be the most dangerous group in the world if the advice on their website is any indication: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index

To summarize, banishing organized religion will not necessarily make the world a better place, but since organized religion of all sorts claim to have absolute, irrefutable knowledge and more often than not, an inerrant interpretation of divine wisdom, they already have one piece of the puzzle needed to create violence, war and genocide.

[sharkman]

Is it possible to live in a world without religion and gods? Absolutely. Is it possible to live without a belief or assumption of some sort? I would be very interested to see that.

While atheism is not a religion, it is a worldview or paradigm, with a set of assumptions. Religions, although they come with gods and explicit moral codes, are likewise embedded in a paradigm, with other such assumptions. How would atheists like it if I questioned the fundamental goodness of democracy, or individual rights? I am not condoning stoning or other practices, I am just pointing out the fact that atheists stand much in the same place as do religious folk, and are subject to the same problem of fanaticism.

If this woman sought to embed islam within a more modern worldview with more equal rights for the traditionally underprivileged, good for her. IMO, we could all use more humanism.

As has been repeated elsewhere religion is not the problem. Many millions, nay billions, who are religious live in peaceful harmony. Fanaticism is the problem, and you can have fanatical atheists just as any other belief system.

Army guy, we wouldn't be singing, "We Are The World", but John Lennon's Imagine (there's no Heaven)!

[JB Globe]

As has been repeated elsewhere religion is not the problem. Many millions, nay billions, who are religious live in peaceful harmony. Fanaticism is the problem, and you can have fanatical atheists just as any other belief system.

Agreed.

Religion is a red herring.

Quite frankly people who are oppressed, disposed, poor or otherwise and flock to radical religious figures as a means of empowering themselves wouldn't stop if religion suddenly disappeared one day. They'd just flock to a radical nationalist, or someone that exploits ethnic pride for their gain, etc.

What many fanatical athiests (as opposed to regular athiests) don't understand is that there are underlying issues to conflicts where religion is a factor, and those are often more important than religion itself.

Fanatical athiests deserve that title because like Fanatical Christians, Muslims, etc - they believe utopia will occur once everyone starts to think like they think.

[DogOnPorch]

Agreed.

Religion is a red herring.

Quite frankly people who are oppressed, disposed, poor or otherwise and flock to radical religious figures as a means of empowering themselves wouldn't stop if religion suddenly disappeared one day. They'd just flock to a radical nationalist, or someone that exploits ethnic pride for their gain, etc.

What many fanatical athiests (as opposed to regular athiests) don't understand is that there are underlying issues to conflicts where religion is a factor, and those are often more important than religion itself.

Fanatical athiests deserve that title because like Fanatical Christians, Muslims, etc - they believe utopia will occur once everyone starts to think like they think.

Fanatical atheists? That's a new one. What would you consider fanatical? Richard Dawkins?

--------------------------------------

If God gets sore enough at you Edith, he could turn your jawbone into an ass.

---Archie Bunker

Edited June 16, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[Drea]

Fanatical atheists? That's a new one. What would you consider fanatical? Richard Dawkins?

--------------------------------------

If God gets sore enough at you Edith, he could turn your jawbone into an ass.

---Archie Bunker

Dog, anyone who questions religious dogma is labelled a fanatical atheist.

Never mind that the whole world would be better off if religion played a mcuh smaller role in our lives.

Atheists cannot be grouped. Each one has a different set of ideas as to why they are non-believers.

Some believe there could be a collective conscience, some believe our energy gets dispersed when we die,

some believe that we are part alien,

some believe there were civilizations on the earth tens of thousands of years ago,

some believe we are simply animals,

some believe we turn into crows, bears and the like,

some believe karma plays a role,

some believe that we are reincarnated unitl we get it "right".

Not one of those expects the whole world (or government, or schools) to get on their bandwagon. Most are simply theories and any atheist will tell you that nothing is concrete. Where the religious will tell you that they KNOW the "truth" and will not accept that they could be wrong.

The atheist realizes he could be wrong. If god showed its face to me right now... I would become a believer. But that isn't going to happen so I, as an atheist will wrestle with varying theories which will change as new evidence comes to light.

[DogOnPorch]

Dog, anyone who questions religious dogma is labelled a fanatical atheist.

Never mind that the whole world would be better off if religion played a mcuh smaller role in our lives.

Atheists cannot be grouped. Each one has a different set of ideas as to why they are non-believers.

Some believe there could be a collective conscience, some believe our energy gets dispersed when we die,

some believe that we are part alien,

some believe there were civilizations on the earth tens of thousands of years ago,

some believe we are simply animals,

some believe we turn into crows, bears and the like,

some believe karma plays a role,

some believe that we are reincarnated unitl we get it "right".

Not one of those expects the whole world (or government, or schools) to get on their bandwagon. Most are simply theories and any atheist will tell you that nothing is concrete. Where the religious will tell you that they KNOW the "truth" and will not accept that they could be wrong.

The atheist realizes he could be wrong. If god showed its face to me right now... I would become a believer. But that isn't going to happen so I, as an atheist will wrestle with varying theories which will change as new evidence comes to light.

Pretty much, Drea. It seems like a lot of folks treat science as if it was a religion...but they know nothing of science itself or how it functions. Science could attempt to prove there is a God as described in the Bible/Koran/Other if there was even a shred of actual evidence that one could test/control/etc using the scientific method. So far...out of luck on all fronts.

Meanwhile...we should have faith that we are alone in God's eye(s) when it comes to life in the Universe.

-------------------------------------------

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.

---George W. Bush

[JB Globe]

Fanatical atheists? That's a new one. What would you consider fanatical? Richard Dawkins?

Anyone who considers religion to be the source of most of the world's "evil" should be considered a fanatic - because such a belief ignores blatant evidence to the contrary that anyone with a basic understanding of world history should know.

I don't know if Dawkins fits into this or not.

[JB Globe]

After reading some of the commentary in this post, I think it's worth reminding some self-righteous people that just because one calls themself a liberal, progressive, or feminist, that they are incapable of being prejudiced - in this case against Islam.

Clearly one can be a Muslim woman and not be oppressed, there is such a thing as being a Muslim feminist after -all.

Just because there is a problem within Islam when it comes to women's rights does not mean the entire religion is wrong. If we threw out the baby with the bath water all the time we'd be living in anarchy because many of our institutions and governments have problems.

I'm assuming we're all in this post because we care about the oppression of women, right? And we all would like to do something to stop it? Right? - So I'd assume we'd all be looking at the best ways to deal with this issue . . . We should be looking at solutions that will work in the real world, on the ground, and are most likely to be effective. The solutions should not be driven by someone's ideological world view.

I'd like to think that people aren't using this issue to advance their own agenda - say, bashing Islam. Because abused women have been exploited enough without being exploited for someone else's political agenda, thank you very much.

[DogOnPorch]

I don't know if Dawkins fits into this or not.

He's the closest thing I can think of. He is rather combative re: his presentation. Others did his job with much better style...James Burke (Connections) and Carl Sagan (Cosmos) come to mind. Existentialism rather than pure cold atheism.

---------------------------------------

The key to why things change is the key to everything.

---James Burke

[Rue]

I don't understand why it's so difficult for people to understand that not having a belief is not a belief.

Because they don't believe you.

[BC_chick]

After reading some of the commentary in this post, I think it's worth reminding some self-righteous people that just because one calls themself a liberal, progressive, or feminist, that they are incapable of being prejudiced - in this case against Islam.

Clearly one can be a Muslim woman and not be oppressed, there is such a thing as being a Muslim feminist after -all.

Just because there is a problem within Islam when it comes to women's rights does not mean the entire religion is wrong. If we threw out the baby with the bath water all the time we'd be living in anarchy because many of our institutions and governments have problems.

I'm assuming we're all in this post because we care about the oppression of women, right? And we all would like to do something to stop it? Right? - So I'd assume we'd all be looking at the best ways to deal with this issue . . . We should be looking at solutions that will work in the real world, on the ground, and are most likely to be effective. The solutions should not be driven by someone's ideological world view.

I'd like to think that people aren't using this issue to advance their own agenda - say, bashing Islam. Because abused women have been exploited enough without being exploited for someone else's political agenda, thank you very much.

There is legitimate criticism of Islam out there. It depends on who is saying it and what their motives are.

If you criticise Islam and you want to promote peaceful change, chances are you are geniunely concerned about the welfare of Muslim women. When you criticise Islam and your resolution includes any type of carpet-bombing (or anything similar), chances are you don't give a rat's @#$ about Muslim women and you just want to dehumanise a group of people so you don't have to feel guilty about killing them en masse.

The critics of Islam who frequent this forum tend to fall in the latter group.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is legitimate criticism of Islam out there. It depends on who is saying it and what their motives are.

Half true....legitimate criticism can come from all quarters, including selfish ones.

If you criticise Islam and you want to promote peaceful change, chances are you are geniunely concerned about the welfare of Muslim women.

...and men, children, their economy, international policies, terrorism, and the price of goat's milk.

When you criticise Islam and your resolution includes any type of carpet-bombing (or anything similar), chances are you don't give a rat's @#$ about Muslim women and you just want to dehumanise a group of people so you don't have to feel guilty about killing them en masse.

Again....it's not just about women. Carpet bombing is so 1960's....think directed attack munitions, which actually reduce "collateral" damage....even the female kind.

The critics of Islam who frequent this forum tend to fall in the latter group.

No, most have no problem with Islam at all....just the manifestations of rabid Fundies. Freedom ain't free.

[White Doors]

He's the closest thing I can think of. He is rather combative re: his presentation. Others did his job with much better style...James Burke (Connections) and Carl Sagan (Cosmos) come to mind. Existentialism rather than pure cold atheism.

---------------------------------------

The key to why things change is the key to everything.

---James Burke

Sagan's bitterness to religion came through to me quite clearly when I read cosmos.

I haven't read Hitchen's and maybe he is not to that level, but he clearly had no patience for people who did not think as he did.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sagan's bitterness to religion came through to me quite clearly when I read cosmos.

Agreed....at times, Sagan could come across as a pompous ass...very full of himself. On film he would seem to worship his own (self appointed) divinity. Johnny Carson (himself an amateur astronomer in light polluted SoCal), used to have Sagan on The Tonight Show, but it was hard to get big laughs because Sagan was so serious. Later, Carson would imitate (and mock oh so serious Sagan) with laughing references to "billions and billions".

There is a new breed of cosmologist on American television (PBS, Discovery Channel, TLC, etc.) that brings levity and loses the ivory tower attitude.

[DogOnPorch]

Maybe so, but Dr Sagan inspired an entire generation to think out of the box when it came to the Universe. Make no mistake, though, he was an entertainer as well as a scientist. However, more than a few people could describe the basics of relativity after watching Cosmos. I suppose it was successful in that regards...with flying colours.

Burke was the real humanist of the lot, facinated by the way mundane objects and events often led to greater things.

-------------------------------------------------------

Time = Money and Money = Pizza; Therefore, Time = Pizza.

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe so, but Dr Sagan inspired an entire generation to think out of the box when it came to the Universe. Make no mistake, though, he was an entertainer as well as a scientist. However, more than a few people could describe the basics of relativity after watching Cosmos. I suppose it was successful in that regards...with flying colours.

No argument there...it was very successful for its time. Dr. Sagan deserves every accolade, but times and tools have changed, and there is so much more access to information. This is what ruins the gig for all the holy men of science. Pop culture has co-opted cosmology.

Burke was the real humanist of the lot, facinated by the way mundane objects and events often led to greater things.

Bingo....Burke was emminently watchable and forever humbled by the production content. Sagan wasn't arrogant, but he lacked this human quality at times, almost burdened to dumb it down for public consumption. There is a current ad campaign from Geico Insurance that uses a Burke-like character.

[Rue]

I am with white and Bush on this one. His arrogance and ego in my humble opinion caused him to be very rigid and close minded to anything he did not agree with. Lol. Kind of like me. (beat you to it Bush)

I prefer Hawkins myself if I have to get out into the cosmos. I like multiple demensions. I never could accept all that black between the stars as just being nothing. Makes no sense.