Islam is NOT a religion of peace

Digi

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Religious fanatics suck. But have you ever considered that it's the fanatic part that's problematic, not the religious part?

It's much harder to create a homicidal fanatic outside of religion. Not impossible, of course, but anything lacking eternal salvation and blind faith won't really create the same fervor of irrational passion.

There's also a point about this that I've long struggled to put into words, and it has to do with creating a cultural climate in which fanaticism can occur. The so-called "moderate" religious adherents are still believers in their God. This is still based on faith instead of evidence, and they maintain certain things follow from this belief (God having an invisible plan, eternal life and salvation, sins and sinners, etc.). This very approach to a worldview is culturally damaging, because it creates sin where none exists, it creates a divide between believers and non-believers and, depending on sect, between the saved and the damned. The road to extremism, at that point, is only a matter of degree. The beliefs that create fanaticism are already ingrained in the culture. The fact that some are able to overcome this is a testament to their inherent decency and ability to assimilate into their world...it is NOT a credit to their religion, which only creates the "acceptance-hurdles" for them to overcome.

There are examples of this outside of religion, some more analogous than others, and the principle is the same: it is easier for an extreme version of a belief to exist when a much more moderate version of the belief is already widespread.

So no, I can't only fault the "fanatic" and not the "religious" when it comes to extremism. I see the latter as the root cause of the former, even if most of any religion will denounce extremism.

Oliver North

Knowledge of the mere existence of Piss Christ or Robert Mapplethorpe should be a prerequisite for making this type of thread...

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by Digi
It's much harder to create a homicidal fanatic outside of religion. Not impossible, of course, but anything lacking eternal salvation and blind faith won't really create the same fervor of irrational passion.

There's also a point about this that I've long struggled to put into words, and it has to do with creating a cultural climate in which fanaticism can occur. The so-called "moderate" religious adherents are still believers in their God. This is still based on faith instead of evidence, and they maintain certain things follow from this belief (God having an invisible plan, eternal life and salvation, sins and sinners, etc.). This very approach to a worldview is culturally damaging, because it creates sin where none exists, it creates a divide between believers and non-believers and, depending on sect, between the saved and the damned. The road to extremism, at that point, is only a matter of degree. The beliefs that create fanaticism are already ingrained in the culture. The fact that some are able to overcome this is a testament to their inherent decency and ability to assimilate into their world...it is NOT a credit to their religion, which only creates the "acceptance-hurdles" for them to overcome.

There are examples of this outside of religion, some more analogous than others, and the principle is the same: it is easier for an extreme version of a belief to exist when a much more moderate version of the belief is already widespread.

So no, I can't only fault the "fanatic" and not the "religious" when it comes to extremism. I see the latter as the root cause of the former, even if most of any religion will denounce extremism. So the countless religious people who aren't fanatics mean... nothing? Religion (some more than others) makes fanaticism easy for some people. As can political ideology, philosophy, or pop culture. It's not religion-exclusive. What all those have in common is their origin in humanity. Simply put, humans are the root of fanaticism and religion. Some indulge, some don't. But taken by themselves, fanaticism is what is damaging and harmful--not religion. They're not synonymous and one can lead to the other, but it's not a guarantee. Hell it's not even common today.

No, the religious people aren't what's problematic. It's the fanatics, the zealots, the moral crusaders among them that need to be... dealt with. Among the non-aligned too.

Oliver North

it's also worth mentioning, in this situation, like with the Mohammed cartoons, powerful interest groups are exploiting this for their own end. In Libya, for instance, there is a lot of speculation that Al Qaeda used the protests as a cover to hit the embassy. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is encouraging more protests. Many people protesting think the film is a huge hit in the West and that we are all sitting around insulting them.

Not to justify any violence, but this situation is not just about angry Muslims.

Digi

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So the countless religious people who aren't fanatics mean... nothing?

Hyperbole is hyperbole, yes. Talking about root cultural causes isn't throwing every good person and good act under the bus. I shouldn't have to make a distinction between these.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Religion (some more than others) makes fanaticism easy for some people. As can political ideology, philosophy, or pop culture.

Well:
Originally posted by Digi
There are examples of this outside of religion, some more analogous than others, and the principle is the same: it is easier for an extreme version of a belief to exist when a much more moderate version of the belief is already widespread.

...so I kinda said that exact thing. Though I'd challenge you to find the same level of widespread, culturally-ingrained prejudice, penchant for violence, etc. in any of those other fields. Politics comes close, because - and Nietzsche smiles - patriotic xenophobia can act as nearly as strong a deterrent to other cultures as religion. Though - perhaps tellingly - at least in this country such undue patriotism is usually paired with religious intolerance as well.

However, it should be just as clear that widespread hatred in the name of other institutions doesn't excuse that of religion.

Also however, your argument is a slippery one, because ascribing everything to simply "human" instead of "institution/trend/organization/etc." ignores the vast amount of influence our world and peers have on our behavior. Institutions can and do create both good and evil where none would exist if the humans involved were left to their own devices. I doubt you would defend an obviously cult-ish organization that encouraged negative tendencies, even if it didn't result in overt violence (bombings, etc.).

Now, of course, religion is more complex, because you have huge amounts of both good and bad, both obvious (charity, bombings) and more subtle (fun social groups, preventing the spread of birth control in third world countries). So at this point it becomes a bit subjective. How much of the good would be removed if you removed religion? How much bad? How much of either would remain? The answer defies absolute statements. However, it's my contention that there's only a handful of ideas/causes strong enough to ingrain violence on an institutional level, and religious faith is one of them. Obviously, individually, things like poverty, fractured psyche, philosophy, music or other cultural influences, etc. can create violence on an individual level. But we're talking trends in society, not individual tragedies.

So. Some of the good that religion creates would go away, as would some of the bad. But I haven't seen a compelling argument for why more wrongdoing would occur if religion didn't exist. This can also be anecdotally reinforced by the numerous studies that actually show strength of religious adherence tends to make people more prejudice, less honest, less moral, etc. by several non-controversial standards.

So I suppose it's the ideas of faith-based belief and an afterlife for adherence to your God that I'm opposed to, since I see those as the root of a lot of this. Individual people can still of course do good in the name of religion. But there's a popular quote that I'll paraphrase: "Good men do good and evil men do evil, but for a good man to do evil, that takes religion." There's maybe 1-2 institutions that could complete that quote with the same force, but it's doubtful even they have nearly as much influence over human beings and their actions.

Originally posted by Digi
No, the religious people aren't what's problematic. It's the fanatics, the zealots, the moral crusaders among them that need to be... dealt with. Among the non-aligned too.

And again, I'll go back to my original point. Without the idea of belief based on faith, which is championed by nearly ALL monotheistic religious adherents, the violent extremists could not exist in nearly the same severity. The idea is unnecessary for human decency and is ultimately destructive as a cultural institute because of this (not to mention the other reasons faith-based belief undermines progress, but I digress...)

You can look across any culture and see groups spring up because they exist in a culture that allows them to crop up. Violent irrational patriotism can't exist without first having benign irrational patriotism. Religious extremism can't exist without first having the ideas being present in the culture, even if they are not acted upon. And sans an absolute belief in an afterlife and the absolute veracity of one's own interpretation of a holy text, there are few other intellectual forces strong enough to create such fanaticism.

Like, how do you quell political unrest? Create a peaceful state. How do you cut down on crime? Reduce poverty. How do you convince a religious zealot you aren't going to hell? ...see the difference?

I don't want this to turn into an attack on Granny Good-faith, who goes to church every Sunday and volunteers at the soup kitchen. She's cool. But it's hard for me not to see an overarching problem with the ideas that religion espouses, and I don't think the world would be any worse off without them. This is of course speculative, but what little potentially-applicable evidence we have seems to support my position.

Bat Dude

Originally posted by Astner
These terrorist attacks are of fundamentalists offended by the ridicule, the purpose of which is to get attention and be heard.

The average muslim lives his life like you and I.

So it's the fundamentalists, aka "THE ONES WHO ADHERE TO THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THEIR FAITH", that go up into murderous rampages?

The lukewarm Muslims don't because they don't ahere to the fundamentals of their faith. The supposed "religion of peace" is actually soaked in violence.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

Quarn 5:33
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Omega Vision

Is that the King James "Quarn"?

dadudemon

Originally posted by Digi
There's also a point about this that I've long struggled to put into words, and it has to do with creating a cultural climate in which fanaticism can occur. The so-called "moderate" religious adherents are still believers in their God. This is still based on faith instead of evidence, and they maintain certain things follow from this belief (God having an invisible plan, eternal life and salvation, sins and sinners, etc.). This very approach to a worldview is culturally damaging, because it creates sin where none exists, it creates a divide between believers and non-believers and, depending on sect, between the saved and the damned. The road to extremism, at that point, is only a matter of degree. The beliefs that create fanaticism are already ingrained in the culture. The fact that some are able to overcome this is a testament to their inherent decency and ability to assimilate into their world...it is NOT a credit to their religion, which only creates the "acceptance-hurdles" for them to overcome.

I don't think I've ever read a bigger load of shit from you. You seem to be hung up on a very specific type of Christianity.

Originally posted by Digi
So no, I can't only fault the "fanatic" and not the "religious" when it comes to extremism. I see the latter as the root cause of the former, even if most of any religion will denounce extremism.

That's definitely a personal problem and shows a clear, closed-minded biased against religion.

Esau Cairn

I live in Australia & last weekend, a simple trip to the city...I nearly got caught up in the riots.

Yes, it's about fanatics fuelling hatred, an anonymous text message randomly sent out to gather & start a protest against a perceived insult.

I'd like to think that I'm not racist but the violence that happened is very typical of the Middle Eastern attitude of a pack mentality.
Any reason is an excuse to fight because they feel you've offended them or shown disrespect.

I've witnessed numerous fights break out because an innocent bystander just happened to glance in the direction of a group of Middle Eastern men. One man steps up to confront the hapless bystander, the bystander has no clue he's done something wrong & the next moment the entire group is pounding on him. There's no fair fight nor is there justification for the violence that ensues...only for the simple fact that it's a pack group mentality.

There's no reasoning to a group that simply gets together for the sake of wanting to commit violence...that fact that the alleged "insult" came from another country, so many months ago, proves this.

Little Caesar

Islam is a violent religion.

Christians should end it with another Crusade, burn them all like Salem witches.

Next, we'll end the Hebrews.

Archaeopteryx

Historically all middle eastern abrahamic religions are violent. It's just in the modern period Islam is far worse.

Oliver North

iirc, Bush, and for sure members of his administration, used explicitly religious language to justify the war in Iraq...

Digi

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think I've ever read a bigger load of shit from you. You seem to be hung up on a very specific type of Christianity.

That's definitely a personal problem and shows a clear, closed-minded biased against religion.

Lol, ok. I don't have enough time properly respond at work, but my subsequent post elaborates on my point a bit. I'm sure you'll disagree with it too, but it will have to fill in for me until I get some more time.

Bardock42

Subsequent means next or after

Bardock42

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Look, I can understand if someone is bombing their cities and invading their land

Which, you know, is happening as well.

Digi

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think I've ever read a bigger load of shit from you. You seem to be hung up on a very specific type of Christianity.

That's definitely a personal problem and shows a clear, closed-minded biased against religion.

Ok. So, first...really?! You should know me well enough by now to know that while I disagree with religion, I'm not holding a gigantic grudge that I wield like a club in debates.

Now, you didn't give me much to work with here. I don't know what assumptions you may have made from my words, or what your specific objection is. So I'm going to fling some poo at a wall and see what sticks.

- I grew up in a very religious home and have pretty much no bad memories from it. I know it can be a force for good. And while I don't think most of that good would have gone away sans religion, it also did nothing to actively hinder it.
- I do constantly stress the difference between religion and the religious people who espouse it. Even the extremist fundamentalists are, on the whole, good individuals who mean well. We just have wildly differing views of what that means.
- Some people can't make that separation. An attack on a belief system is an attack on them personally. That's their problem, not mine, frankly. We have to be able to combat ideas on an intellectual playing field, sometimes vehemently, and it's entirely possible to do that without losing sight of the humanity necessary to respect the individuals and their right to believe it, however absurd we may find the beliefs.
- This may touch on your specific objection, given your "one type of Christianity" comment: if you, your sect, etc. doesn't espouse faith as a means to understanding God (and I use faith in the sense of "belief without evidence" wink

, then my point is not about you. But I'm not just talking about the religious outliers. Perfectly moderate, and ultimately good, Christians and Muslims espouse faith as a method of belief. The percentage of theists that don't use faith is very small. I'm not talking about them or their system of belief. I'm talking about mainstream Christianity and Islam, and faith - belief without evidence - is specifically in my crosshairs.

Let's build toward my point again with some statements that hopefully won't be controversial:
- Extremists are men of faith. They truly believe in their God, their holy text, and that their actions put them on the path to eternal salvation. This is, almost by definition, the reason they do what they do.
- We know that morality is possible without religion and faith, and the evidence we have on the subject suggests that religion actually doesn't make one more moral. I can cite examples if needed, and have done so numerous times on the forums.

The priests in my decidedly-moderate church growing up often talked about giving yourself fully to God. Total faith was needed for this, and it was supported as the best possible trait within the belief system. It's a powerful meme. It is encouraged despite lack of evidence, and often the community supports faith even in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's a strong idea.

Now, given the all-importance of religion for believers - moderate or otherwise - we're talking about right and wrong, good and evil, salvation or damnation, and this is in pretty much every Christian sect. We're still nowhere near extremism. And if you truly believe, is there anything you wouldn't do for your God, your religion? The answer should be no, because we're talking about eternity. At that point, it's just a matter of interpreting a text in a violent way. Or a prejudiced way. Or a non-inclusive way.

So on a basic level, faith opposes critical thinking or at least replaces it oftentimes. This isn't true for all levels of belief - it obviously varies person to person and by situation - but the idea of belief without evidence flies in the face of it. And on a larger level, it is perhaps the strongest possible impetus for action that we have as humans, at least on an organizational level. Very little, if anything, has the power that religion, faith, and belief has to rally people to a cause.

So how can I not see the propping up of faith as a good trait as destructive? I don't think it creates any good where none would exist otherwise, and I think, societally, it endorses an idea that, when it reaches a critical mass, can give rise to such extremism. If there were no goodly, moderate priests talking about total blind faith, there would be no extremists (or far less) invoking it to justify their hatred.

It doesn't make the goodly priest evil, or even detrimental on an individual level. As a whole, though, the practice becomes dangerous. It also doesn't mean violence would be eradicated, or even that irrational hatred ad violence wouldn't break out on larger levels. But I do think it would be harder to organize such ingrained prejudice against others in ways that we see manifested in modern society's religious violence.

..

I've also said this is opinion, and largely unverifiable. The little evidence we have on morality among various levels of religious adherence, which seems to favor my argument, also isn't directly applicable to this topic. So take it how you will. This isn't an angry rant against people invoking faith in their daily lives. It's an academic opinion about a cultural trend and specific idea.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Digi
I've also said this is opinion, and largely unverifiable.

I agree that it is your opinion and largely unverifiable.

Originally posted by Digi
The little evidence we have on morality among various levels of religious adherence, which seems to favor my argument,

Is this true or are you using outdated studies?

Originally posted by Digi
This isn't an angry rant against people invoking faith in their daily lives.

I disagree 100% with this statement. It's clearly a rant/biased opinion against theists.

If I were to make a similar statement that would actually be more accurate, I could claim that agnostics and atheists are single, educated, poorer, men, living alone, that do little for charity compared to their theistic peers. Sure, that's backed up by "science", but it does little to contribute to meaningful discussion. It comes off more as a rant and is clearly a bias statement.

Originally posted by Digi
It's an academic opinion about a cultural trend and specific idea.

I disagree with this, too. It has very little academic backing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Subsequent means next or after

Why did you make this post? Clearly, Digi posted the word "subsequent" in his post but you'll need to be more clear with what you're doing, here.

Digi

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree that it is your opinion and largely unverifiable.

At least try to address my points.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is this true or are you using outdated studies?

The idea that atheists can be moral is common sense. The more specific morality studies are documented here:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=479017

I also go on to say: "The little evidence we have on morality among various levels of religious adherence, which seems to favor my argument, also isn't directly applicable to this topic."

Also, your use of the word 'outdated' implies that if I am using studies as evidence, that they are not valid or that I am knowingly using incorrect data (which I would take offense to, but this is the internet). The nature of the question is disingenuous. But no, I know of nothing that has overturned the studies I cite in that thread. They are only tangentially related to my central point, but somewhat applicable to points made in the discussion. If evidence had overturned the points made in the studies, I would not cite them. No one on any side should skew data to make their point.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree 100% with this statement. It's clearly a rant/biased opinion against theists.

To this I have only this reply:
Originally posted by Digi
- Some people can't make that separation. An attack on a belief system is an attack on them personally. That's their problem, not mine, frankly. We have to be able to combat ideas on an intellectual playing field, sometimes vehemently, and it's entirely possible to do that without losing sight of the humanity necessary to respect the individuals and their right to believe it, however absurd we may find the beliefs.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If I were to make a similar statement that would actually be more accurate, I could claim that agnostics and atheists are single, educated, poorer, men, living alone, that do little for charity compared to their theistic peers. Sure, that's backed up by "science", but it does little to contribute to meaningful discussion. It comes off more as a rant and is clearly a bias statement.

Couple things:
- I'm not rambling off a litany of prejudices about theists. I don't think the concept of faith is a positive force in the world. Period; end of central point. Every other point made is simply to work toward that idea. This is wildly different than piegonholing theists into unfair stereotypes.
- Are you actually getting those lifestyle traits from some sort of evidence? Single, poorer, etc.? Seems arbitrary. I have not heard of such stereotypes or data. I'd particularly be interested in the charity argument. Obviously theists do more because there's a LOT more of them. But, per capita, I'm pretty sure Bill Gates alone would give atheists a sizable head start in the philanthropy department. Seeing numbers would be fun.
- Third, I'd probably disagree with you on such a "rant" but I'd completely respect your right to say it. I'd try to address your points on an intellectual level, not brush them off as biased and angry unless it was overtly clear you weren't listening to reason or debating rationally. Tolerance of perceived negative aspects of society is disrespectful to humanity.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree with this, too. It has very little academic backing.

You're using academic in a different sense.
From dictionary.com: theoretical or hypothetical; not practical, realistic, or directly useful: an academic question; an academic discussion of a matter already decided.
...most of what we talk about on KMC is academic in that sense. We're not in a position to do or change much in a practical sense, we're just exchanging ideas. A head coach debating which quarterback to start vs. two fans in the crowd debating which quarterback to start.

...

I still haven't actually fielded a rebuttal from you yet. You seem married to the ploy of simply calling it a biased rant.

"The concept of faith is not a positive force in the world." and "The omnipresence of faith in many theistic religions allows for it to give rise to detrimental groups who use their faith as justification." Do you agree/disagree? Why or why not? If you aren't going to address that, you're just wasting our time.

srug

Digi

Amusingly...I did a few quick google searches about religious adherence and charity work. The only source I could find to suggest that religion = more giving was Conservapedia, which also links directly to entries like "Atheist whining" and an "Atheism and morality" article that begins: Not possessing a religious basis for morality, atheists are fundamentally incapable of having a coherent system of morality.

The studies I cite in the link above are on morality, not philanthropic donations, so I don't have evidence to the contrary on a specifically philanthropic topic. I also wouldn't be surprised to learn that religious adherents DO give more. In non-profit work, simply "making the ask" in a variety of ways leads to more donations, as does creating opportunities for peer emulation (i.e. "look how many donors we've already raised at this event! Add your name to our list now!" wink

, and church services and related groups are a great forum for such asks, whereas non-churchgoers don't have any sort of outlet to donate on a regular basis. But suffice it to say, the link made me chuckle but did little to sway my opinions.

Little Caesar

from Conservapedia

Barack Hussein Obama II (b. August 4, 1961, either in Kenya or Honolulu, Hawaii) was elected the 44th President. Promoted heavily by liberals, as demonstrated by his unjustified receipt of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, Obama won the presidency despite a short and unremarkable political career by outspending his opponent, John McCain, by hundreds of millions of dollars in 2008.

The liberal claptrap that helped elect Obama as president seems silly today. It was claimed, for example, that Obama has millions of followers on Twitter, when allegedly some 70% of them are fake.
---

Lots of comedy gold there.

Digi

It's the type of comedy that's also sobering. To someone, and many other someones, that is their primary source of online information. It's the kind of stuff that reminds us that we're not orders of magnitude away from things like political assassinations and widespread societal upheaval in certain areas of the country.

Also probably evidence of my point that the prevalence of certain ideals can create a cultural hotbed for more extreme versions of the ideal to become ingrained in people. The same things I've been saying about faith could easily be likened to patriotism and concepts of freedom. Which, taken alone, don't seem harmful (this from a professed libertarian, so I'm not pushing socialism here), but can lead to harm and prejudice when present in excess.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Digi
At least try to address my points.

The idea that atheists can be moral is common sense. The more specific morality studies are documented here:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=479017

I also go on to say: "The little evidence we have on morality among various levels of religious adherence, which seems to favor my argument, also isn't directly applicable to this topic."

Also, your use of the word 'outdated' implies that if I am using studies as evidence, that they are not valid or that I am knowingly using incorrect data (which I would take offense to, but this is the internet). The nature of the question is disingenuous. But no, I know of nothing that has overturned the studies I cite in that thread. They are only tangentially related to my central point, but somewhat applicable to points made in the discussion. If evidence had overturned the points made in the studies, I would not cite them. No one on any side should skew data to make their point.

To this I have only this reply:

Couple things:
- I'm not rambling off a litany of prejudices about theists. I don't think the concept of faith is a positive force in the world. Period; end of central point. Every other point made is simply to work toward that idea. This is wildly different than piegonholing theists into unfair stereotypes.
- Are you actually getting those lifestyle traits from some sort of evidence? Single, poorer, etc.? Seems arbitrary. I have not heard of such stereotypes or data. I'd particularly be interested in the charity argument. Obviously theists do more because there's a LOT more of them. But, per capita, I'm pretty sure Bill Gates alone would give atheists a sizable head start in the philanthropy department. Seeing numbers would be fun.
- Third, I'd probably disagree with you on such a "rant" but I'd completely respect your right to say it. I'd try to address your points on an intellectual level, not brush them off as biased and angry unless it was overtly clear you weren't listening to reason or debating rationally. Tolerance of perceived negative aspects of society is disrespectful to humanity.

You're using academic in a different sense.
From dictionary.com: theoretical or hypothetical; not practical, realistic, or directly useful: an academic question; an academic discussion of a matter already decided.
...most of what we talk about on KMC is academic in that sense. We're not in a position to do or change much in a practical sense, we're just exchanging ideas. A head coach debating which quarterback to start vs. two fans in the crowd debating which quarterback to start.

...

I still haven't actually fielded a rebuttal from you yet. You seem married to the ploy of simply calling it a biased rant.

"The concept of faith is not a positive force in the world." and "The omnipresence of faith in many theistic religions allows for it to give rise to detrimental groups who use their faith as justification." Do you agree/disagree? Why or why not? If you aren't going to address that, you're just wasting our time.

srug

Yes, those are traits of atheists (the ones I listed) that are more common among atheists and agnostics than other "religious" demographics. I didn't pull that out of thin air.

Also, Bill Gates is not an atheist: he's agnostic.

Digi

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, those are traits of atheists (the ones I listed) that are more common among atheists and agnostics than other "religious" demographics. I didn't pull that out of thin air.

Also, Bill Gates is not an atheist: he's agnostic.

Fair enough. I looked up the Gates thing and it checks out. I rather think the point to made is still valid though - the world's biggest philanthropist is non-religious. I brought up the Gates example because you seemed to be getting petty, listing traits of atheists (which is not what I'm doing for theists). I really don't think we need to be choosing teams.

There's also his position to consider. Neil DeGrasse Tyson avoids the word atheist and that whole debate because it would undermine his primary objective - to teach science. If he's being honest, he'd have to admit that a scientific worldview tends to lead many away from religion. But he can't say it because of media and the politics of celebrity. If you look at Gates's interviews on the subject, he states that he approaches his worldview from a scientific perspective, but sees a lot of merit in religious morality and ideals. That's about as guarded an answer one can give while telling the truth about non-religiosity. He's making sure he doesn't lose support. We have to say he's agnostic, and he probably is. But I also guarantee you we haven't heard his full thoughts on religion, and never will. Evidence-based beliefs, a scientific worldview, etc. are the key ideas, regardless of label. He doesn't represent anything having to do with mainstream Western faith.

I also think you're probably right about overall giving numbers, for reasons I outlined in the Conservapedia post. But I also think it's a social thing as much as anything. Get a group of like-minded individuals together and I can get you thousands of dollars. My entirely secular organization raised 150K in a day from 800 attendees recently (though the religious makeup of the attendees varied). That's twice what we'll do over the next 12 months. But our event is once every three years. Church is every week. Give atheists a weekly gathering where they work themselves into a fervor and are asked to give to goodly causes. Numbers would skyrocket. But I go out for drinks or dancing or sports a few times a week, stay at home the rest of the time, and never get solicited for money. If I wasn't proactive, I would never give. And most, religious or otherwise, aren't proactive unless they have social or peer influences.

You're still not really pulling your weight in this discussion though. I'd like to hear you respond to more than just 1-2 selected lines. Normally I wouldn't care, but when you call me out so vehemently, I expect something behind it, not just more vague sniping.

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, Bill Gates is not an atheist: he's agnostic. Can't you be both?

Digi

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Can't you be both?

Sure, yes, sort of. I'd rather not get into this. The end result of the forum trying to lock down labels was, if anything, more confusion.

It's a very wuzzy line, though, to quote a Carl Sagan saying I enjoy. They're related enough that in many cases we can group them together because of the philosophical difference from theism (though not always).

Oliver North

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, Bill Gates is not an atheist: he's agnostic.

lol, according to him or you?

Digi

Originally posted by Oliver North
lol, according to him or you?

I thought of that too, but what I found seems to confirm it. However, as I mentioned, I haven't seen him use a label. He's very diplomatic about the topic in interviews, as you'd expect.

Oliver North

Fair enough. I probably could have looked it up, but was happier to give ddm a bit of shit, seeing as everyone to him is an agnostic.

Bardock42

Originally posted by dadudemon

Why did you make this post? Clearly, Digi posted the word "subsequent" in his post but you'll need to be more clear with what you're doing, here.

No reason really, I have made posts like this before.

Call it a public service announcement.

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_diplomatic_missions_attacks

THIS is what it takes to get them rioting, murdering, and comitting violence in general. A simple movie, or a few years ago it was a cartoon. This is a whacky,violent, sadistic religion. To be fair, so are the other two abrahamic religions but not to the extant this one is. maybe we ultimately are incompatible with them.

It not being a religion of peace (and it isn't, it's a cult of Mo) lies in the scriptures of Islam, the Islamic books and sources which promote and glorify death or subjugation of the kuffar (non-believers) and considers women to be chattel.

To understand Islam you have to go to their sources, Qur'an, Hadiths, Tafsirs... not to wikipedia.

Consider this:

''I am just a moderate Nazi. I don't believe in Anti-Semitism, I just agree on fuhrer's views on automotive industry and social order.
You can't judge Nazism by what fundamentalist Nazis do.''

If this disturbs you, so should a Muslim speech about religion of peace.

Lord Lucien

Stop being ig'nant, LB. Nazism was just a fanatical ideology that started a war. Islam is a religion. Totally 100% different.

lil bitchiness

Clearly you know nothing of Islam or Nazism. Ironic you call me ignorant on Islam when I live in the Arabian Peninsula. Lulz.

Lord Lucien

Please. I live in Qatar. And for five years I lived in Iran. AND Germany at the same time. So I know plenty about Nazlam.

Digi

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Please. I live in Qatar. And for five years I lived in Iran. AND Germany at the same time. So I know plenty about Nazlam.

Or you could address her points. Calling a person ignorant and saying where you live, shockingly, isn't a rational argument.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
''I am just a moderate Nazi. I don't believe in Anti-Semitism, I just agree on fuhrer's views on automotive industry and social order.
You can't judge Nazism by what fundamentalist Nazis do.''

Lets list some potential reactions to this statement from imaginary people.

SC: Cool, I'm glad your opposed to genocide and will support you in trying to stop it. Have you considered that Nazism has problems other than anti-Semitism?
LilB: I demand that you murder more people.

Oliver North

so, what are the qualifying factors that determine if something is a "religion of peace"?

like, how would one argue against the OP?

Digi

Originally posted by Oliver North
so, what are the qualifying factors that determine if something is a "religion of peace"?

like, how would one argue against the OP?

...a decent question. Gets into ideas of subjective interpretation and whatnot. I think, at best, one could probably argue that a particular sect of a religion is peaceful or non-peaceful. Because (western) religions are, almost by default, neither one intrinsically.

I think sometimes we want to make things too empirical though. As hard as it would be to standardize criteria that's truly objective and/or acceptable to all, there are probably several sociological factors (morality in certain situations, prejudice, disposition toward violence and justifications for it) of a religion that could be tested, that could lead us to a provisionally acceptable answer. It would just take a LOT of study.

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by Digi
Or you could address her points. Calling a person ignorant and saying where you live, shockingly, isn't a rational argument. You're being ig'nant, stop ig'nant.

Ascendancy

Originally posted by Digi
...a decent question. Gets into ideas of subjective interpretation and whatnot. I think, at best, one could probably argue that a particular sect of a religion is peaceful or non-peaceful. Because (western) religions are, almost by default, neither one intrinsically.

I think sometimes we want to make things too empirical though. As hard as it would be to standardize criteria that's truly objective and/or acceptable to all, there are probably several sociological factors (morality in certain situations, prejudice, disposition toward violence and justifications for it) of a religion that could be tested, that could lead us to a provisionally acceptable answer. It would just take a LOT of study.

Why make everything so complex and empirical? I think this would make much more sense by keeping it simple instead of saying this needs to be a multiple decade investigation into what qualifies as "peaceful", reviewed by peers and tested against all known standards. I cannot figure out why so many discussions on this board have to "devolve" into complex chaos.

Why not even just stick to the subject at hand: can a religion that holds to scripture stating that violence and murder are acceptable when its profits are leaders are not in danger, but simply insulted or caricatured in any way be considered a religion of peace? Yes or no and reasons why. Is it necessary to go off on tangential adventures?

Oliver North

d-do you not know what the Christian and Jewish texts say about blasphemy?

red g jacks

does the quran actually endorse violence in the case of blasphemy or the prophet being insulted?

serious question, i don't read the quran.

Oliver North

My understanding is that, depending on the context Mohammed was reciting the Quran in (war or peace, for instance), he has different answers.

I know that is the case in terms of religious tolerance.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Oliver North
d-do you not know what the Christian and Jewish texts say about blasphemy?

Sure do.

Christian: After Jesus, no one can kill anyone else for their sins and all judgement are up to God. Oh, and we (not you...but me and my peeps) have to forgive everyone of everything and turn the other cheek when they smack us. no expression

Oliver North

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure do.

Christian: After Jesus, no one can kill anyone else for their sins and all judgement are up to God. Oh, and we (not you...but me and my peeps) have to forgive everyone of everything and turn the other cheek when they smack us. no expression

Example: adulteress was spared from a stoning, which was required through the law of Moses. Jesus forgave her and told everyone to settle the **** down because they are all just as evil.

And why don't we follow the Old Testament ("Old Covenant", or the Law of Moses) law? Because it was prophesied to be replaced by a New Covenant: Jer. 31:31 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah"

And when was this New Convenent mentioned in the New Testament?

Luke 22:20 "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."

But what is the most damming evidence from New Testament canon that speaks out against killing and speaks for life?

2 Cor. 3:6 "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

Why is this important and what doe those mean? Jesus came to renew the Letter of the Law (the Law of Moses which had a very strict adherence standard) and replace it with an even tougher law: the Spirit of the Law. No longer could you just blindly kill those that broke the Law: you had to forgive and love. That's much tougher to do than just go apeshit on someone for trespassing you (sometimes, grievously). Put down your stones, think about the enemy, and love them. A pretty tough pill to swallow, no doubt.

So whenever you see Christians saying shit like, "KILL THE MUZZIES!" Or , "turn it into a glass bowl!"...they are NOT being Christians nor are they following the teachings from the canon NT. It is very un-Christlike behavior.

Why do I say this?

Romans 12:18 "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."

That's pretty clear: try your absolute hardest to live peacefully with all peoples and cultures.

arguably, what you are talking about has more to do with the interpretation of scripture (we both know about penalties like stoning a man to death for working on the Sabbath, and one of the 10 commandments deals explicitly with blasphemy) rather than the existence of scripture that could justify violence in the case of blasphemy. Not to mention, there are numerous Muslim religious leaders who say the exact same thing about never killing people or violence not being justified in cases of blasphemy.

If that's the case, we are looking at this in pretty much the same light. The problem isn't ontologically "Islam", but the way that Islam is being used by religious leaders for their own ends.

Just out of curiosity, did you follow anything about the 10 year old autistic girl charged with blasphemy in Pakistan?

Originally posted by dadudemon
In other words, I (and Muslims) are required to do this: I love you, inimalist. May peace be upon you and your loved ones.

no doubt, love ya brah!

lol, I'll talk with my girlfriend about our convos sometimes. We collectively refer to you as "doughnuts" because of your avatar. I mention this only to be endearing.

S_W_LeGenD

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Historically all middle eastern abrahamic religions are violent. It's just in the modern period Islam is far worse.
Horrible analogy.

US imperialism is the greatest issue in modern period.

Darth Jello

I've been thinking about this for awhile. Islam and Christianity breed extremism whether it's crusades or terrorist attacks or riots or legislating from the pulpit. Yet other religions don't nearly have the same problem. I think it's partially this inclusivity bullshit. Islam and Christianity need to take a page from Judaism and NOT LET EVERYONE IN. Ministering in morality is fine, GOOD WORKS which is a concept that has been lost, especially for protestant Christianity should be a cornerstone of faith but by allowing any schmuck to convert and playing faith like a competition you allow the lowest common denominator to enter your faith and then taint it. Have a vetting process for God's sake, Religion is a supposed to be rules and responsibilities, and obligations, if people can't meet them, don't let them in to begin with.
Prison ministries are the worst because often they just give violent offenders a focus and an opportunity to be released via a bias parole board. From what I've seen, neither God nor Allah can make a psychopath grow a conscience or a taste for age-appropriate poon. Converting a serial killer for crack into a serial killer for Allah or a sister ****er into an abortion clinic bomber is not a victory for Islam or Christianity.
Maybe the first step into forcing religions to get some quality control would be to stop defacto subsidizing them in supposedly secular nations and TAXING them like any other private institution.

Archaeopteryx

Taliban shoot 14 year old girl

Archaeopteryx

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Horrible analogy.

US imperialism is the greatest issue in modern period.

You'll get no argument from me that the US is bullying other countries (at the behest of multinational corporations) when it should be pursuing a non interventionist foreign policy.

Having said that I stand by my original statement, Islam is not a religion of peace.

Arhael

Weak minded people will always be fanatic about something. Similarly, in England a lot of people are fanatic about their football team. They are willing to fight, abuse and sometime even kill for it. And football is not even a religion.

Also, agree with Digi's "cultural climate". Specific environment makes people more likely to be fanatic about something. Again I will bring football example. Parents take children as young as 1 year old to watch football, obviously it will their future interests.

Darth Jello

Originally posted by Arhael
Weak minded people will always be fanatic about something. Similarly, in England a lot of people are fanatic about their football team. They are willing to fight, abuse and sometime even kill for it. And football is not even a religion.

Also, agree with Digi's "cultural climate". Specific environment makes people more likely to be fanatic about something. Again I will bring football example. Parents take children as young as 1 year old to watch football, obviously it will their future interests.

Which is why religions shouldn't invite or allow the weak minded, though admittedly the more authoritarian religions and sects (Wahhabism, Dominionism, Mormonism, etc.) thrive on that. Many Muslims live in parts of the world that have been in conflict for centuries. Children born to parents in conflict exhibit signs of PTSD, more violent temper/behavior, and sociopathy for up to 2 generations after a conflict. Combine that with right wing governance which as a rule, likes to keep people really ****ing stupid and you have a recipe for disaster. Stupid, violent retards can find any reason to fight and tear each others heads off so maybe, could violence and terrorism be prevented by Islam raising their standards and not letting everyone become or be born a Muslim?
I mean the media could deligitimize these dickholes by calling the Qutbists instead of radical Muslims the same way it calls dumb Christians Dominionists and dumb Jews Kahanists but I doubt that's going to happen.