Muslim and Christianity,what's the problem?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I read the whole quote. It wasn't intended to be devious. The rest of your quote, and the explanation here does nothing to circumvent my point.

Also, a hearty lulz to this: "You seem to think that it says its ok to walk around and kill random people." So I'm a murderer now because I dislike people who use religion to violent ends? Shoddy logic there, chief.

Anyway, I'm a bit stunned that you continue to miss the point: I couldn't care less if a line is unambiguous and preaches tolerance. That's great, actually. The point is that as long as there is an "unfallible" divine being backing a religion's texts and scriptures, people will find justification for their violence in the words somewhere. And the fact that it is a dogmatic religion that is the one "true" religion, this is right in their eyes. The fact that you or I can look at the Koran and not have it inspire hatred for others in us is irrelevant (though I remain skeptical that you don't harbor hatred). That fact that it happens, and people throw their own lives away as well as others' because of subjective religious study, IS the issue.

Thought experiment: make all religion metaphoric and continue to use it as a teaching tool to help us through life, but don't make any of it literal truth. How many people of any belief are then going to throw their lives away for it, or use it to justify violence in the name of their god? Not all violence would go away, but a considerable amount sure as hell would. As long as religious texts exist that claim to be literal truth, the bad consequences will exist.

It doesn't justify unprovoked, mindless violence. State laws don't either, but they occasionally use violence as punishment. Here in AZ we still have the gas chamber as a form of legal execution, but only a judge can condemn someone to it. That's my point; the violence the Koran justifies is punishment. Read the book, and much of your media-inspired preconceived notions will disappear.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

So congrats on proving Islamic violence wrong. If I had the money, I'd fund a trip for you to go to the most war-ravaged areas of the Middle East. I'm sure the people there just accidentally missed the line....

I've been to Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Anyways, they're not fighting over religion; they're fighting over land politics.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It doesn't justify unprovoked, mindless violence. State laws don't either, but they occasionally use violence as punishment. Here in AZ we still have the gas chamber as a form of legal execution, but only a judge can condemn someone to it. That's my point; the violence the Koran justifies is punishment. Read the book, and much of your media-inspired preconceived notions will disappear.

Continuing to miss the point. You're making the same assumptions about my argument that you did earlier. Hell, my last couple posts answer your latest statement just as well.

I'm not saying Islam is a violent religion. Or Christianity. I'm saying that it is used as such in both cases, as will any religion be that sets itself up as literal truth with divine backing. There's the problem: Religion as dogmatic truth. The individual words and scriptures that are being used are ancillary to the point.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I've been to Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Anyways, they're not fighting over religion; they're fighting over land politics.

Right, but they fight us over religion.

Hell, we can even take this out of an Islamic context. Christians persecuting homosexuals: same thing. Persecuting out-of-wedlock sex: same thing. persecuting, well, anything. In the minority? Of course. But an inevitable side affect of religious texts that claim to be divine word. The hate is in people, not in the religion. But religion is the lynch pin that allows them to justify themselves as well as rally others to their cause.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Continuing to miss the point. You're making the same assumptions about my argument that you did earlier. Hell, my last couple posts answer your latest statement just as well.

I'm not saying Islam is a violent religion. Or Christianity. I'm saying that it is used as such in both cases, as will any religion be that sets itself up as literal truth with divine backing. There's the problem: Religion as dogmatic truth. The individual words and scriptures that are being used are ancillary to the point.

Right, but they fight us over religion.

Hell, we can even take this out of an Islamic context. Christians persecuting homosexuals: same thing. Persecuting out-of-wedlock sex: same thing. persecuting, well, anything. In the minority? Of course. But an inevitable side affect of religious texts that claim to be divine word. The hate is in people, not in the religion. But religion is the lynch pin that allows them to justify themselves as well as rally others to their cause.

Everything you said is right. And the reason I posted that line from the 109th sura was to show that Islam has a built-in mechanism against conversion by coercing. So you're right; those that kill in the name of God, either overlooked it or act in spite of it.

Originally posted by chithappens
The reason we are all so intense when we talk about what we believe is because each of us know we are right, just like everyone else.

- Me

Yeah, but I've got something none of those other guys have. A good feeling about it.

Lulz at chit's comment. True for the most part. Except it's possible to hold things as provisional truths, subject to further or contradictory evidence. Too many religions place an emphasis on faith, which requires no evidence and actually flies in the face of it most times. Dogmatic faith truly is when "one knows that they are right" despite the equally-strong faith of others which might contradict it, or empirical evidence which may contradict it.

Long story short: switch to a scientific worldview (DO IT! 😛 ). Getting rid of infallible dogmas is the first step to letting reason in the door, and truly realizing that you may not be right, even while you search to better your knowledge. It'll also help avoid the religion-inspired violence of this title's topic.

[/sales pitch]

313

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
That was apparently abrigated, which means that the verse applied to Mecca at the time but doesn't now.

I think it also says in the Quran to face to Rome it was then abrigated and muslims now face to Mecca.

Obvoulsy though that is a matter of opinion. I wasn't saying that what I posted was the correct and only interpretation. Just putting in my 2cents.

Originally posted by chithappens
The reason we are all so intense when we talk about what we believe is because each of us know we are right, just like everyone else.

...a profound and unconscious fear of [what we believe in] not being real.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Hrn. One could, I suppose, trace its roots through history to a myriad of causes that defy nationalistic boundaries, and would include American influence. But no, I wouldn't. Whatever transgressions were made by America (I'm not so naive as to pretend there were none) certainly weren't at the level that an act like 9/11 was an inevitable consequence of them. 9/11 was Muslim extremism waging their war on both another religion and another culture.

I wonder, if a bunch of Iraquis would now pull something like that and, lets say, kill a mere 5000 people...would that have been US provoked in your opinion?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah, but I've got something none of those other guys have. A good feeling about it.

😆 Oh God! I'm quoting that, LOL

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Lulz at chit's comment. True for the most part. Except it's possible to hold things as provisional truths, subject to further or contradictory evidence. Too many religions place an emphasis on faith, which requires no evidence and actually flies in the face of it most times. Dogmatic faith truly is when "one knows that they are right" despite the equally-strong faith of others which might contradict it, or empirical evidence which may contradict it.

Long story short: switch to a scientific worldview (DO IT! 😛 ). Getting rid of infallible dogmas is the first step to letting reason in the door, and truly realizing that you may not be right, even while you search to better your knowledge. It'll also help avoid the religion-inspired violence of this title's topic.

[/sales pitch]

313

I can't think of a "religion" that is not faith-based with a promise of some great reward or "renewal" at death.

If you went into your yard and said the same thing on a soapbox they would hunt you down for being a witch-man.

Originally posted by Mindship
Or, the reason we are all so intense is because of...
We use mouth-noise to compensate.

Sadly, that applies to everything.

You ever notice that if you have conversations like these face to face with someone you are unfamiliar with they just get louder and LOUDER until they some how won by volume?

Originally posted by chithappens
Sadly, that applies to everything.

You ever notice that if you have conversations like these face to face with someone you are unfamiliar with they just get louder and LOUDER until they some how won by volume?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I wonder, if a bunch of Iraquis would now pull something like that and, lets say, kill a mere 5000 people...would that have been US provoked in your opinion?

It would depend on the circumstance. I can think of scenarios where I'd answer yes and others where I'd answer no.

Originally posted by chithappens
I can't think of a "religion" that is not faith-based with a promise of some great reward or "renewal" at death.

If you went into your yard and said the same thing on a soapbox they would hunt you down for being a witch-man.

Right, which is why it wasn't an endorsement for a religion, but more a non-religious stance. I'm atheist, but realize that such a stance is a big leap for many, so I generally try to espouse reason, logic, and science as either supplements to religion, or as replacements for dogmatic faith while still maintaining some belief in transcendent reality.

Originally posted by chithappens

I can't think of a "religion" that is not faith-based with a promise of some great reward or "renewal" at death.

How about the countless religions native to the North American continent?

See, that's one complaint that I have against religious critics, especially the more famous ones; they only concentrate on Christianity and Islam (and occasionally Hinduism), but all the while ignoring others around the world.

That's why I put "religions." I already mentioned the Native Americans earlier

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Long story short: switch to a scientific worldview (DO IT! 😛 ). Getting rid of infallible dogmas is the first step to letting reason in the door, and truly realizing that you may not be right, even while you search to better your knowledge. It'll also help avoid the religion-inspired violence of this title's topic.

[/sales pitch]

313

What happens when we go to war over which version of scientific truth is accurate?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How about the countless religions native to the North American continent?

See, that's one complaint that I have against religious critics, especially the more famous ones; they only concentrate on Christianity and Islam (and occasionally Hinduism), but all the while ignoring others around the world.

Originally posted by Mindship
Historically, it would seem, Christianity and Islam have generated the most fervor, shed the most blood.

Which isn't relevant. It's already been stated in this thread that the existance of any form of dogma is evil. People that would be described by most standards as "good" have been demonized simply because they follow a religious belief system. Violence is clearly not the issue.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which isn't relevant. It's already been stated in this thread that the existance of any form of dogma is evil. People that would be described by most standards as "good" have been demonized simply because they follow a religious belief system. Violence is clearly not the issue.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
...religious critics...they only concentrate on Christianity and Islam...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How about the countless religions native to the North American continent?

See, that's one complaint that I have against religious critics, especially the more famous ones; they only concentrate on Christianity and Islam (and occasionally Hinduism), but all the while ignoring others around the world.

They're the easiest to debunk, and also have the most adherents. It's trying to reach as many people as possible. Take those two together, and you're talking about over half the world's population. Especially the English-speaking world, a lion's share of which are Christian, it doesn't make as much sense to talk about the others. Native American tribal religions don't help create government policies....so if you see religious influence as a net negative, you speak out against the influential ones.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What happens when we go to war over which version of scientific truth is accurate?

That doesn't happen. Science is remarkably reciprocal, and if one's findings supplement or replace another scientist's, they readily assimilate it into their work. Or they conduct further tests to either confirm or refute it. "Wars," if you will, are fought in laboratories over which sets of empirical data stand up to rigorous testing.

And any great scientist has lived to see his work proven wrong. It's not a mark of failure, but of progress. Hell, for example, much of the work that won Stephen Hawking his Nobel Prize had to be later retracted upon further findings. But it did nothing to diminish his status, nor his contributions to astrophysics. The only people who seem to be at war with science are usually not in the field but pushing an outside agenda (usually religious).

Thus, why provisional truths based upon evidence are superior to unchanging dogmas. The system itself allows for change, and doesn't place such staunch faith in anything, the same faith that leads to all sorts of religious intolerance, violence, and irrational beliefs.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
They're the easiest to debunk, and also have the most adherents. It's trying to reach as many people as possible. Take those two together, and you're talking about over half the world's population. Especially the English-speaking world, a lion's share of which are Christian, it doesn't make as much sense to talk about the others. Native American tribal religions don't help create government policies....so if you see religious influence as a net negative, you speak out against the influential ones.

No offense but the debunking arguments are completely generic. "God " can effortlessly be adapted to "The Great Spirit isn't real because it isn't falsifiable". Effort in debunking them is a terrible excuse. And what about the Jews? There are tons of them. They're just as dogmatic.

I'll remind you of this:
"I'm not saying Islam is a violent religion. Or Christianity. I'm saying that it is used as such in both cases, as will any religion be that sets itself up as literal truth with divine backing. There's the problem: Religion as dogmatic truth. The individual words and scriptures that are being used are ancillary to the point."

The very existance of those dogmas is part of the problem. Media allows you to fix the beliefs of Christians en masse. Your time would be much better spent going out to all the other ignorant people and enlightening them about how wrong they are.

Your heart is clearly in the right place (in fact I agree with much of the basic premises) but your methods and rationalizations are, frankly, annoying.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
That doesn't happen.

Yes it does. Not in the form of all out war, not now at least, but any science that is inconvenient will get viciously attacked. Take religion out of the picture and science will rapidly turn into dogma, it's an inevitable aspect of human nature. Conflicting theories can and do exist simultaneously and in the absence of religion they will be abused in order to rally people to violence ("Hey those guys across the river are Lamarkians! We have to make them listen to reason."😉

The entire thrust of arguments seems to move towards absolving humanity of its faults by inventing something to blame (ie Satan made me do it, being Christian made me do it) Religion is not about violence at its core but people use it for that anyway. Science is not about violence at it's core but with a lack of alternatives people will use it for that anyway. It seems like you're trying to assume that current practice will remain identical even if society is fundamentally altered.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Native American tribal religions don't help create government policies....so if you see religious influence as a net negative, you speak out against the influential ones.

Maybe not Native American religion but the basis of democracy came from Native American precedent, at the very least.

"It would be a strange thing if six nations of ignorant savages should be capable of forming a scheme for such a union and be able to execute it in such a manner as that it has subsisted ages and appears insoluble; and yet that a like union should be impracticable for ten or a dozen English colonies."

- Benjamin Franklin while proposing the Albany Plan Of Union (he was speaking of the Iroquois League)

Iroquois

Evidence has also come up to suggest that Africa had a continent wide democracy at one point before being attacked from the north and east simultaneously (but since European ethnocentrism tends to come into play, neither the African or Native American influence is mentioned in "Academia"😉.

Edit: It should also be noted that Europe was all about the monoarchy. They couldn't give a damn less about attempting anything similar to democracy at the time. Divine right ruled, period.