Should we be offended by Islam?

[magnifier661]

It is the punishment, though.

It's a much more serious offense than (many) actual crimes.

What I meant by asking what they would say is that even moderate Muslims have been slow to accept atheism and denounce punishment for apostates.

Hoojacks from previous threads seems more agnostic atheist than Muslim, but I would suggest he has many family or friends in the culture. He seems to know the culture pretty well. With that said, I think the overall concept of the Muslim faith isn't as aggressive as you think. It's the radicals that give the religion a bad name.

Look at the extremists of Christianity and atheism.... There have been extreme cases on all accounts. The problem isn't religion, it's belief and thinking your belief is better than everyone else. You tend to force your views on other people and when they resist, you get angry and use force. It is human nature and only ones that can openly discuss all walks can live peacefully among others that don't share your views.

 

[Sinobas]

"Islam" doesn't do anything. It isn't a person. What this dude is offended by are the actions of people who are Muslim.

And their actions are in no way related to their beliefs......

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

The problem isn't religion, it's belief and thinking your belief is better than everyone else.

But that's what most religion is -- having beliefs that are true relative to one's Tradition. While many Christians presumably are religious pluralists, that is not part of their Jesus doctrine or myth; it's more a part of a modern worldview -- part of a larger culture.

And ... scientific believing, for instance, is demonstrably superior to magical thinking (believing). Seems to me you use this fallacious formulation (quoted above) for self comfort -- the illusion that your nutty, magical beliefs are on par with beliefs grounded in reason and practical experience.

Also, atheism isn't a belief system anymore than not collecting stamps is a hobby, but feel free to argue against any of these points.

 

[magnifier661]

But that's what most religion is -- having beliefs that are true relative to one's Tradition. While many Christians presumably are religious pluralists, that is not part of their Jesus doctrine or myth; it's more a part of a modern worldview -- part of a larger culture.

And ... scientific believing, for instance, is demonstrably superior to magical thinking (believing). Seems to me you use this fallacious formulation (quoted above) for self comfort -- the illusion that your nutty magical beliefs are on par with beliefs grounded in reason and practical experience.

Also, atheism isn't a belief system anymore than not collecting stamps is a hobby, but feel free to argue against any of these points.

Yeah those scientific moral atheist that murdered well over 100 million people get a pass because they don't believe in magic! I like your style.... Shall we call it rubber and I'm glue?

Stay in the playground? Keep that banter there. We are adults. Big kids are talking.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

But that's what most religion is -- having beliefs that are true relative to one's Tradition. While many Christians presumably are religious pluralists, that is not part of their Jesus doctrine or myth; it's more a part of a modern worldview -- part of a larger culture.

And ... scientific believing, for instance, is demonstrably superior to magical thinking (believing). Seems to me you use this fallacious formulation (quoted above) for self comfort -- the illusion that your nutty magical beliefs are on par with beliefs grounded in reason and practical experience.

Also, atheism isn't a belief system anymore than not collecting stamps is a hobby, but feel free to argue against any of these points.

He will never understand any of this. He doesn't want to. He's a lost soul and a lost cause.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

Yeah those scientific moral atheist that murdered well over 100 million people get a pass because they don't believe in magic!

What scientific moral atheists murdered well over 100 million people? You would need to state specifically what you are referring to here. As such it's simply a fallacious claim. It's certainly not a matter of any history.

And again, atheism is not a belief system (you read the hobby/belief analogy, right? Is my hobby NOT collecting stamps if I do not collect stamps?). Just exactly what 'atheist beliefs' do you see at work in these alleged murders? If you have some historic events in mind it should be easy for you to i) provide the motivating atheist beliefs and ii) to establish their role in these murders.

I like your style.... Shall we call it rubber and I'm glue?

I think you are confusing your attempts at deflection with style. I call what I do a dialectic, or at least, that's the idea, but getting you to actually engage with what is written is another matter. If you reply to my posts in the future, I'd really appreciate it if you could manage to engage something of the actual post in your response. When you respond as you have been, it just seems like you aren't serious.

Stay in the playground? Keep that banter there. We are adults. Big kids are talking.

Yes, great example. You really need to take this last part to heart. Your responses consist of mostly deflection. This isn't dodge ball.

I've placed plenty on your plate. Feel free to dig in.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

He will never understand any of this. He doesn't want to. He's a lost soul and a lost cause.

It would seem that way, but I've seen him actually boast of his open-mindedness ... and yet, whenever he's given an opening ... he runs from intellectual engagement.

I don't think he understands that magical thinking is a description rather than an insult.

 

[Further]

I don't think he understands that magical thinking is a description rather than an insult.

Well to be fair, it's both. At least on these boards it has been used as both a description and insult.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

I'm more liberal than not, but I kind of agree with this guy.

Yes. If one takes 9-11 seriously, we should all be offended by Islam.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

Well to be fair, it's both. At least on these boards it has been used as both a description and insult.

Well, then _two_ plagues on all his houses -- how dare he assume such ill will. I fear he'd have acted the same if "religious" was used instead. At any rate, there's nothing to stop him now -- now that it's been cleared up. It's just so odd to see such blatant boundaries past which his self-questioning cannot go. Of course ... you know what I'm thinking; you know my heart is true.

Send him a dream. Tell him I mean him no harm.

 

[magnifier661]

What scientific moral atheists murdered well over 100 million people? You would need to state specifically what you are referring to here. As such it's simply a fallacious claim. It's certainly not a matter of any history.

And again, atheism is not a belief system (you read the hobby/belief analogy, right? Is my hobby NOT collecting stamps if I do not collect stamps?). Just exactly what 'atheist beliefs' do you see at work in these alleged murders? If you have some historic events in mind it should be easy for you to i) provide the motivating atheist beliefs and ii) to establish their role in these murders.



I think you are confusing your attempts at deflection with style. I call what I do a dialectic, or at least, that's the idea, but getting you to actually engage with what is written is another matter. If you reply to my posts in the future, I'd really appreciate it if you could manage to engage something of the actual post in your response. When you respond as you have been, it just seems like you aren't serious.



Yes, great example. You really need to take this last part to heart. Your responses consist of mostly deflection. This isn't dodge ball.

I've placed plenty on your plate. Feel free to dig in.

No deflection of 70+ million dead caused by atheists.

Their people viewed the cleansing as a moral event.

 

[ABM]

And again, atheism is not a belief system.....

Doesn't mean they won't band together, though...

 

[magnifier661]

Doesn't mean they won't band together, though...

Lol! It's not a belief though! Haha

 

[PapaG]

What scientific moral atheists murdered well over 100 million people? .

Hitler and Stalin ... they both based their belief on 'science' and genetics.

I have no horse in this race, because I think both sides are ridiculous in their smearing of the other, but you made this too easy.

 

[PapaG]

Atheism is literally a belief that there is no God.

I find atheists as faith-based as I find Christians, Muslims, or any other religious group.

The 'scientific' approach is to be agnostic, which is what I am.

 

[Further]

Atheism is literally a belief that there is no God.

I find atheists as faith-based as I find Christians, Muslims, or any other religious group.

The 'scientific' approach is to be agnostic, which is what I am.

They are not mutually exclusive.

Is not believing in unicorns faith-based? If so, then then fine atheism is too. If its not, if its just saying its silly to believe in something with zero evidence, that's how I see it. You would be looked atas a wacko if you really believed in the Easter bunny or leprechauns. But, technically they could exist, there is no proof otherwise. Hence agnostic and atheistic.

 

[Further]

Lol! It's not a belief though! Haha

Do you repeat this line because you don't understand, or because you are trying to be confrontational?

 

[Denny Crane]

Do you repeat this line because you don't understand, or because you are trying to be confrontational?

Absence of belief may well qualify as belief.

 

[magnifier661]

Do you repeat this line because you don't understand, or because you are trying to be confrontational?

No I used "faith" before to be confrontational. The line "belief" is still true. The reason why most atheists dislike that is because "believing" is to assume you don't have the necessary facts to make it a fact.

And the fact is atheism must use an agnostic approach towards "lack of belief", whatever they call it.

But in most cases... Deep down... One that lacks belief like the unicorns still requires one to not believe because they just haven't seen one yet.

 

[magnifier661]

Lmao the entire "well I lack belief" reminds me of the term "it's not pink man, it's salmon!"

 

[Further]

No I used "faith" before to be confrontational. The line "belief" is still true. The reason why most atheists dislike that is because "believing" is to assume you don't have the necessary facts to make it a fact.

And the fact is atheism must use an agnostic approach towards "lack of belief", whatever they call it.

But in most cases... Deep down... One that lacks belief like the unicorns still requires one to not believe because they just haven't seen one yet.

But you see this is the problem, we get sidetracked on definitions and minutia instead of discussing ideas that both you and I have genuine interests in, like our discussion about the earliest moments of the Big Bang and what happens to the four forces at the earliest moments. After that discussion I spent a couple hours surfing the web trying to glean what theories a majority of theoretical physicists were inclined to believe in.

If you tell me that when you use a specific phrase, you mean a specific definition, I will then use your definition.

When I see a school bus, I see that color as orange. If you tell me that you consider that color yellow, then if you describe something else as school bus yellow I will understand exactly the color you are referring too. I will not start a debate with you every time that I think that color is orange.

 

[magnifier661]

But you see this is the problem, we get sidetracked on definitions and minutia instead of discussing ideas that both you and I have genuine interests in, like our discussion about the earliest moments of the Big Bang and what happens to the four forces at the earliest moments. After that discussion I spent a couple hours surfing the web trying to glean what theories a majority of theoretical physicists were inclined to believe in.

If you tell me that when you use a specific phrase, you mean a specific definition, I will then use your definition.

When I see a school bus, I see that color as orange. If you tell me that you consider that color yellow, then if you describe something else as school bus yellow I will understand exactly the color you are referring too. I will not start a debate with you every time that I think that color is orange.

Oh I totally respect you and your debating skills. This concept or dig was more to do with the ones that aren't grasping the concept. The ones actually getting angry over some of the stupidest shit.

I can understand frustration on both ends. I just love debating. As for the weirdo that jumps in with baffling grammar; it is just a reminder that some people like to read what they write.

 

[Further]

Oh I totally respect you and your debating skills. This concept or dig was more to do with the ones that aren't grasping the concept. The ones actually getting angry over some of the stupidest shit.

I can understand frustration on both ends. I just love debating. As for the weirdo that jumps in with baffling grammar; it is just a reminder that some people like to read what they write.

I dig

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

Hitler and Stalin ... they both based their belief on 'science' and genetics.

I have no horse in this race, because I think both sides are ridiculous in their smearing of the other, but you made this too easy.

Ugh, nope. Not too easy. That they both based their belief on 'science' and genetics (if true) does not clarify which of those beliefs bear upon specific actions. This means you've not established that anyone was killed in the name of atheism or because of an atheistic disposition.

That's just you perpetuating a myth. Hitler claimed to be Catholic, gave speaches in public to that effect, etc., so by your logic he must have acted in the name of Christianity, right?

Stalin may have been an atheist, but his actions were not done in the name of atheism. You would need to show how his atheist beliefs were the driver of his actions (moreover, which specific beliefs led to which specific actions). You did read my post, right? Perhaps it really was too easy.

"Atheism is literally a belief that there is no God."

You would be more informed by reading the philosophical literature on the subject. If you did so, you would discover that Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. No doubt there exist people who share this belief with you -- but no doubt many are confused. The only atheist belief is the belief that 'belief in gods is not compelling.'

In other words, the atheist position is just the one that says, there's no compelling reason to have beliefs in things like gods ... so they don't

Is this too subtle a point? So then, to then make the additional claim that there is no god does not follow from atheism. It's logic, man.

"I find atheists as faith-based as I find Christians, Muslims, or any other religious group."

Well, where do you find them? Because, with all due respect, the real ones I actually know say you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

Absence of belief may well qualify as belief.

When baldness qualifies as having a full head of hair; when not collecting stamps becomes a hobby; sure, then absence of belief will constitute presence of belief.

 

[Wheels]

I know it doesnt apply but for some reason reading the argument of "You are stupid for believing" "no you are stupid for not believing" made me think of the very last square in this Calvin and Hobbes strip

 

[Denny Crane]

When baldness qualifies as having a full head of hair; when not collecting stamps becomes a hobby; sure, then absence of belief will constitute presence of belief.

So YOU say (wrongly).

 

[magnifier661]

When baldness qualifies as having a full head of hair; when not collecting stamps becomes a hobby; sure, then absence of belief will constitute presence of belief.

As I said above.... "That's not pink!!!!! Its salmon!"

 

[magnifier661]

Ugh, nope. Not too easy. That they both based their belief on 'science' and genetics (if true) does not clarify which of those beliefs bear upon specific actions. This means you've not established that anyone was killed in the name of atheism or because of an atheistic disposition.

That's just you perpetuating a myth. Hitler claimed to be Catholic, gave speaches in public to that effect, etc., so by your logic he must have acted in the name of Christianity, right?

Stalin may have been an atheist, but his actions were not done in the name of atheism. You would need to show how his atheist beliefs were the driver of his actions (moreover, which specific beliefs led to which specific actions). You did read my post, right? Perhaps it really was too easy.

"Atheism is literally a belief that there is no God."

You would be more informed by reading the philosophical literature on the subject. If you did so, you would discover that Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. No doubt there exist people who share this belief with you -- but no doubt many are confused. The only atheist belief is the belief that 'belief in gods is not compelling.'

In other words, the atheist position is just the one that says, there's no compelling reason to have beliefs in things like gods ... so they don't

Is this too subtle a point? So then, to then make the additional claim that there is no god does not follow from atheism. It's logic, man.

"I find atheists as faith-based as I find Christians, Muslims, or any other religious group."

Well, where do you find them? Because, with all due respect, the real ones I actually know say you don't know what you are talking about.

The Hilter point is valid. He piggy backed religion to gain respect of people; but Papa was right as well, because after power, Hitler used an atheistic and scientific approach to brainwash the people in believing that ethic cleaning was just a part of natural process.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080904101035AAGTMP2
As for Stalin:

Before you go any further, you must look at the ideology of "communism". Fundamentally, they believe everyone is at a level playing field. Their way of life is that the community of people comes before the individual but if all individuals are taken care of, then the community is doing well. Religion divides. Marxist and Maoist communism had less of an issue with the belief in a god or in Jesus, but had a serious issue with 'religion.' For centuries prior to the Communist government in Russia, the Church, that is the Russian Orthodox Church had it's hands in all facets of Politics. By the time the Tsarist government fell in 1917, the Church was almost as powerful as the Tsar himself. The Bolsheviks instituted a policy of separation of church and state, but the effects of the power the Church had mustered over the years was still felt in the political circles. When the communists took control of Russia, they knew that the only way to silence the church was to eradicate it. In communist thinking, the government IS the people and the people ARE the government, thus to separate the church and the government, the church had to be removed. That is what fueled the actions of Stalin and Mao as well. Yes, it is true that they were atheists. After all, atheism IS logical and understandable, and as far as I am concerned the only intelligent decision. But, it was not their personal theological beliefs or lack there of, that caused them to commit the actions they did.

Then when you asked which "Moral Atheists do can I give that used science and atheism"; you look no further in Stalin. This man tried making super soldiers by using primate DNA and human DNA. It failed and the scientists involve all got executed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism_and_religion

The founder and primary theorist of Marxism, the nineteenth century German sociologist Karl Marx, had an ambivalent attitude to religion, viewing it primarily as "the opium of the people" that had been used by the ruling classes to give the working classes false hope for millennia, while at the same time recognizing it as a form of protest by the working classes against their poor economic conditions.[1] In the end, Marx rejects religion.[2]

In the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of Marxist theory, developed primarily by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, religion is seen as negative to human development, and socialist states that follow a Marxist-Leninist variant are atheistic and explicitly antireligious. Due to this, a number of Marxist-Leninst governments in the twentieth century, such as the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, implemented rules introducing state atheism. However, several religious communist groups exist, and Christian communism was important in the early development of communism.

Here are some Lenin quotes regarding religion:

Vladimir Lenin was highly critical of religion, saying in his book Religion

"Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism.[4]"

In About the attitude of the working party toward the religion, he wrote

"Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[5]"

 

[magnifier661]

BTW... Sorry GOD that this thread was hijacked. I actually liked the muslim discussion better. Maybe "chevyrunssometimes" could start a new thread and use his strawmen there.