Originally posted by dadudemon
Woah woah woah. WTF?That's not what I said at all. I don't aim to take down religion at all. I just said that the world would be better off with it.
Perhaps I phrased that poorly.
If you dislike religion it's not very productive to do things that are against religion (in fact that tends to make people cling to their beliefs all the more). Instead you should focus on building up science.
Like, if you have a cold the runny nose might be what bothers you but it isn't the actual problem.
Originally posted by inimalist
if by better world, you mean one where there is less personal freedom
Uh. No.
Some thought on my point would have revealed greater personal freedom. Trade one freedom for a bajillion others. Seems like a grand deal, to me. 😄
More thoughts would have revealed my cynicism towards religion, in general. There are some religions out there that are just fine and harmless...great. But I can't be a hypocrit and only pick and choose. 😉
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Perhaps I phrased that poorly.If you dislike religion it's not very productive to do things that are against religion (in fact that tends to make people cling to their beliefs all the more). Instead you should focus on building up science.
Like, if you have a cold the runny nose might be what bothers you but it isn't the actual problem.
And, no, I don't plan on, nor do I want religion to disappear. I was just being cynical.
As someone else said, if religion didn't exist, we'd find other reasons to fight and oppress. Religion is just an excuse.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Am I the only one that has failed to grasp the path from 'better off without it' to 'oppreshun'?
No. You actually understood what I meant.
immigrant communities, reread please
I don't see how this is relevant to what I said. My claim was that the patriarchy within Islam is the problem, not Islam itself. The fact that there is any gender specific regulations, compound with the fact that men have given themselves the power and will use oppression along gendered lines to keep it, is the issue, and this issue is seen in many other communities, not just the Islamic ones.
Most south asian nations have issues with this. India and the Hindus there, for example, also have a very strict patriarchal system, and there are huge oppressions of women. Bride death, for instance.
I wasn't speaking about the negative aspects of Islam, I was speaking of the negative aspects of patriarchal systems, which would apply equally across all patriarchal systems
Unless you are a scholar of Islam or a Muslim yourself, I'd hardly think you, or I for that matter, qualify as someone who gets to declare what is or is not part of Islam. All religions are different than their holy text, and even the most fundementalist don't ever follow strict interepretations of them. They try, but the books are self contradictatory in many parts.
I certainly don't feel I have the right to tell people what is or is not their religion
see, this is prejudiced toward Muslims
simple example: iconoclasm was strictly forbidden in mecca but was there is a hadith in medinah, 13 years later, which allowed drawing of even live forms as long as it was not on your body or the walls of your house. yet many people still uphold the iconoclastic stance in the muslim community BECAUSE they are not doing a comparative study of hadith...which points to superficial knowlege of the religion.
i don't see why we can't point out the elephant in the room. there IS a lot of religious ignorance in the muslim community, which is why you have terrorism, discrimination and misogyny going on in a community whose religion openly opposes these.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Am I the only one that has failed to grasp the path from 'better off without it' to 'oppreshun'?
well...
for starters, many laws which oppress people are not, in their original intent, set up to oppress
essentially though: no religion; no freedom of belief; no diversity of thought; no ability for individuals to come to their own decisions about the universe. Wanting no religion essentially forces people not to be religious. There are some people to whom religion is important, even just the idea of being religious. I'd think they are entitled to that, and the world is a better place because of it.
see my sig.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Uh. No.
sure it is
Originally posted by dadudemon
Some thought on my point would have revealed greater personal freedom. Trade one freedom for a bajillion others. Seems like a grand deal, to me. 😄
really? which of your freedoms would you be willing to give up, so that someone else can have their perfect world?
Originally posted by dadudemon
More thoughts would have revealed my cynicism towards religion, in general. There are some religions out there that are just fine and harmless...great. But I can't be a hypocrit and only pick and choose. 😉
ya, I'm speaking of religion in general
wanting a world without religion is, imho, fairly naive.
when you say there is religious ignorance, it means you have an interpretation of the religion that you know is right as opposed to the way other people interpret the religion.
The only difference is that you call them ignorant whereas they blow you up.
Originally posted by BackinBlack
dude, with all due respect,
with all due respect, dont patronize me
Originally posted by BackinBlack
i think you're missing the point. i'm not talking about the interpretation but the knowledge of the religion itself.
what constitutes knowledge of a religion is based upon interpretation
what you are proposing is that there is a "true" way to interpret scripture, or even "be a Muslim". You are then saying others are not truly interpreting scripture, or that they aren't following true Islam, for whatever reason.
No offense, but that is the same as Qutb declaring Jahiliya on Muslims who didn't engage in Jihad against the Egyptian government, only you aren't calling for violence.
Originally posted by BackinBlack
lotta religious people today rely on a superficial, second hand and spoonfed "knowledge" of their religion.
a) that is their right
b) so? that the knowledge is second hand says nothing of its truth
c) why is your way right and theirs wrong?
Originally posted by BackinBlack
that's the problem. interpretation only occurs if you're reading the text yourself, which most people aren't.
that's the point i'm making.
ok, so move the criticism back one level. You are now saying there is a proper way to be religious, in fact, one true way to be religious.
Originally posted by BackinBlack
no. i'm calling them ignorant and they are proving my point by blowing me up.
I think you might be a little ignorant of Jihadi theocratic philosophy.
for instance, what do catapults and suicide bombers have in common?
with all due respect, dont patronize me
what constitutes knowledge of a religion is based upon interpretation
and i'm not criticizing the interpretation but the fact that people are relying on the interpretation of others instead of having one of their own. this has become the bane of islam and other religions because the knowledge that is passed on is subject to manupilation. the teachers can easily censor out bits that don't suit their taste or agendas.
and pair that up with the fact that there is no intellectual criteria to being a so-called scholar and perhaps you'll understand why i'm so adamant against spoonfed religious teachings.
what you are proposing is that there is a "true" way to interpret scripture, or even "be a Muslim". You are then saying others are not truly interpreting scripture, or that they aren't following true Islam, for whatever reason.
No offense
i have the authority to call it wrong based on what dangers it exposes not only the people to but also the religion itself to. its like going to a school where you're not allowed to read a book but have to take your teacher's word for everything. the risk is too great. and, frankly, the fact that one deliberately goes to such a school sheds a light on his/her intellectual side as well.
ok, but up until this point, you have said, and I'm paraphrasing, "people who are spoonfed religion are not following the true religion".
my only point is that this is impossible to prove
I'd go further and comment about how such feelings lead to entrenched, polarized sides to debates that quickly deteriorate, and do more harm in solving the problems with extremists than good, but my big point was that you couldn't know for sure they are wrong.
for starters, many laws which oppress people are not, in their original intent, set up to oppress
DDM
I just said that the world would be better off with it.
All I've seen from DDM is the idea that (organized?) religion has a negative net value for humanity. Ergo: the world would be a better place without any form or idea of religion. Prohibited religion is still a form of religion.
essentially though: no religion; no freedom of belief; no diversity of thought; no ability for individuals to come to their own decisions about the universe. Wanting no religion essentially forces people not to be religious. There are some people to whom religion is important, even just the idea of being religious. I'd think they are entitled to that, and the world is a better place because of it.
@DDM: Rite?
inimalist, I normally would not respond, as this is not my argument. I just think that you are reading way too much into this. He's not suggested a proactive pursuit of the goal. So unless you can explain your path from 'it'd be nice if there was no organized religion' to 'I want to eliminate freedom of religion' I'm gonna have to say you lost me on this.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
He isn't infringing freedom of belief: he is daydreaming that people would simply not believe it, not that they would be prevented from believing it.
LOL
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
so he has the A and the C, but, god no, we can't be critical of the B.
the world would be a better place without black people
what? that isn't oppressive
same deal
unless you claim to have the proper understanding of the true religion?