NationStates Jolt Archive

Anything you tell your kids is technically brainwashing.

Daniel Dennett gives a nice definition of indoctrination/brain-washing: he says that what you teach your children is only indoctrination if it renders them incapable of doubting and deciding for themselves. By this logic, telling them that a moment's doubt or reading anything 'ungodly' would send them to Hell would be brainwashing, but telling them most stuff isn't.

anyone that speaks out against Islam is a bigot and should be hated

anyone that speaks out against Christianity or Judaism is to be praised

It's quite hypocritical to take offense at people insulting Christianity or Judaism given your signature...

I notice you don't seem to care that Smunkee attacked atheists.

Oh...Wait, she agrees with you, I forgot. It's the rule to only call logical fallacies when they aren't for your position.

Where did she do that? The post you seem to be taking umbrage at says:

or because you don't have anything better to do then to come around here and spout uneducated BS in your vain attempts to get the "cool kids" to notice you and to try to get into the "us vs. them" circle jerk where logical fallacies are a dime a dozen and anyone with an intelligent point is ridiculed.

Which is clearly an attack on you rather than on atheists in general. If you're refering to a different post then I apologise in advance.

I notice you don't seem to care that Smunkee attacked atheists.

Oh...Wait, she agrees with you, I forgot. It's the rule to only call logical fallacies when they aren't for your position.

I don't care if Smunkee attacks A atheists or even several Atheists. And, no, Smunkee and I don't agree. But, hey, that's just another fallacy.

"But, daddy, johnny did it too. Why am I the only one being punished?"

Yep, didn't work when I was seven, doesn't work now? But I do appreciate that you accept your fallacies.

I don't care if Smunkee attacks A atheists or even several Atheists. And, no, Smunkee and I don't agree. But, hey, that's just another fallacy.

"But, daddy, johnny did it too. Why am I the only one being punished?"

Yep, didn't work when I was seven, doesn't work now? But I do appreciate that you accept your fallacies.

I have no time to waste on hypocrites.

Where did she do that? The post you seem to be taking umbrage at says:



Which is clearly an attack on you rather than on atheists in general. If you're refering to a different post then I apologise in advance.

Yes, it's like that whining that if a mod doesn't act on a post they don't see then it's bias. If she broadbrushed Atheists and I saw it, I would call it and have in the past. But, hey, if "she did it, too" is the only argument he's got, then what else do you expect him to say?

I have no time to waste on hypocrites.

Ha. More ad hominems. I'm enjoying your failure, but would like to provide an example. The only post of hers I saw was directed at YOU, just as was pointed out by RLI.

What you should have wrote is:
I really don't have a valid argument.

They say the same thing, but the second one is clearer and looks less like you're scrambling.

It is a death cult like christianity and judaism.

Ha. More ad hominems. I'm enjoying your failure, but would like to provide an example. The only post of hers I saw was directed at YOU, just as was pointed out by RLI.

Yes, and my post was directed at Smunkee.

What we have here is a "misunderstanding".

And it is extremely hypocritical to attack someone's logical fallacies but attempt to justify another's.

Yes, and my post was directed at Smunkee.

What we have here is a "misunderstanding".Why? You wrote what you wrote. And you were right.

Excuse me? Explain to me how belief in god isn't uneducated BS?

Yes, and my post was directed at Smunkee.

What we have here is a "misunderstanding".

And it is extremely hypocritical to attack someone's logical fallacies but attempt to justify another's.

You didn't say "your". You said "a". You attacked all theists. And you defended it. Now you're scrambling and pretending you only meant to direct it at her. Seriously, this is just sad.

So I take it your argument has switched, "yes, it was a fallacy, but she committed it first", to "no, it's not a fallacy because you misunderstood that when I didn't put 'your' I really meant 'your'".

Don't you want to flip what you meant yet another time. This is comedy gold.

Meanwhile, what logical fallacy? You can't just claim there were logical fallacies there. Point to one. Or, hey, keep on calling me a hypocrite. Yeah, that logical fallacy will always help your argument.

Don't you want to flip what you meant yet another time. This is comedy gold.
.

I'm sorry, but I see no point in debating with someone who can't understand the possibility of a "typo".

Also, you do realize the irony of describing someone's posts as "comedy gold" while accusing them of ad hominem attacks, don't you?

Find someone else to take out your irritation on.

I'm sorry, but I see no point in debating with someone who can't understand the possibility of a "typo".

Also, you do realize the irony of describing someone's posts as "comedy gold" while accusing them of ad hominem attacks, don't you?

Find someone else to take out your irritation on.

A typo you say? So when you said
Excuse me? Explain to me how belief in god isn't uneducated BS?
you meant something that doesn't attack all theists, but we're misunderstanding because of a typo?

Strange, I don't see how spelling anything differently would make it any different.

And speaking of attacking all theists, it's amusing how you can do that, then complain that Smunkee attacked atheists and then go on to accuse Jocabia of hypocrisy. Comedy gold indeed.

I'm sorry, but I see no point in debating with someone who can't understand the possibility of a "typo".

Also, you do realize the irony of describing someone's posts as "comedy gold" while accusing them of ad hominem attacks, don't you?

Find someone else to take out your irritation on.

You don't know the difference between attacking your posts and attacking you? Ad hominem means "to the man". Even you claim I was making fun of your posts. You really should refer to fallacies unless you understand what they mean.

Meanwhile, I'm not irritated. I'm entertained. I hope you keep posting. It keeps getting better. Now you're claiming it was a "typo". A minute ago you claimed you were both broadbrushing. So which is it? Were you only referring to her or where you referring to all Christians? Because if you like, unlike you, I can objectively prove that broad attacks on Christians are a regular thing from you. Now if she is guilty of the same, and you want me to call her out on it, please provide evidence. You can provide evidence for your spurious claims, can you not?

A typo you say? So when you said

I loved when he said Smunkee did it first, and called me a hypocrite for not also called her out, since that's a clear admission that, if Smunkee did it first, he must have done it as well. So he admits clearly that he was guilty of hasty generalization but uses Smunkee doing it first as a defense. And then when asked for evidence, suddenly, it was a typo and he was directing it at just Smunkee just like she was directing it just at him. Hmmmm... can't really work both ways, can it?

Does the "you're a hypocrite and I'm leaving, but one more thing, bark", "you're a hypocrite and I'm leaving, but one more thing, bark", "you're a hypocrite and I'm leaving, but one more thing, bark", etc., strike an image into the mind of anyone else?

Or click the link on my sig.

Ron Paul FTW!

Oh, the same site that left irrelevant spam in my fiance's blog? :rolleyes: who would want to support a candidate who has a campaign that leaves spam in privately owned blogs?

by Soviestan

If you turn away from Islam at 16 it means you were a believer at 15. An age where you are more than capable of understanding. Like I said before, one can not go from believe to disbelief. There is not a contradiction.

I was a beleiver because that was the only thing I was raised to beleive. So you want to argue, that if a religion forbids people from ever leaving its beleif system with the threat of punishment, said religion is being consistent with its own claim that it advocates no compulsion. Nice.:rolleyes:


Originaly posted by Soviestan

Don't post lies about the Rasul of Allah without backing them up.

I offered it as an opinion. Theres plenty of hadiths where Muhammad is portrayed as peaceful and an almsot equal amount where he is cruel and violent...he's not my prophet anymore so I have no problem accepting that he was a fallbile human being. I'll gladly offer you the hadiths, if you want but I do not really want to derail this conversation into wether or not Muhammad was a violent man. But since you asked so nicely, I'll give you just one from Sahih Bukhari. (I Guess you're Sunni, so this is your accepted version of the hadith).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:

Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Again, I'm not trying to paintbrush all Muslims..I'm saying that as an individual Muhammad was not always very pleasant. And yes I can go in and out of religion if I want, that is my absoloute right. My apostasy wasnt a wilful decision to spite God, it involved a process of thought where I realised that I coudnt beleve in things that I have no proof for. If you take offesne to that, your problem, not mine. I do hope that at least you'll have the decency to admit that the sharia punishment for it is inappropriate in this day and age.

Beleif or disbeleif in a God is not an indicator of how well educated a person is, but even extremely well educated people may beleive in things based on faith if that gives them comfort. No one can disprove a negative, but the fact remains that there is no objective proof for Yahyew, Allah, Krishna etc and the likelyhood is that they probably do not exist.

I'm sorry, but I see no point in debating with someone who can't understand the possibility of a "typo".

Also, you do realize the irony of describing someone's posts as "comedy gold" while accusing them of ad hominem attacks, don't you?

Find someone else to take out your irritation on.

How is describing someone's posts as 'comedy gold' an ad hominem? As it's referring to the post itself, it's clearly not an ad hominem attack.

Heh, says the person who pops into the thread to release all their angst against religion.

Beleif or disbeleif in a God is not an indicator of how well educated a person is, but even extremely well educated people may beleive in things based on faith if that gives them comfort. No one can disprove a negative, but the fact remains that there is no objective proof for Yahyew, Allah, Krishna etc and the likelyhood is that they probably do not exist.

How do you calculate this likelihood?

...as much as I try to tell myself that Muslims are peaceful people, and as much as I know there are a lot of peaceful people who call themselves Muslims, there seems to be so many attacks by people claiming to be Muslims that I'm inclined to believe Islam is a violent cult after all. Just like Christianity is a generally peaceful religion with a few violent people in it, it seems that Islam is a generally violent religion with a few peaceful people in it.

What does everyone else reckon?

islam is the SAME cult/religeon/belief/faith/whatever else you want to call it, as christianity. and that really is the beggining and end of it. mohammid WAS the return of christ. one of them. the first of the three such 'returns' which the christian bible actually mentions. at any rate, neither is any more nor less violent or prone to fanatacism then the other.

people in all beliefs become bitter when they don't see their religeons bringing the peace and end to suffering to the world arround them their religeous leaders promise and claim their books to guarantee. and always it seems, the other guys, the fallowers of other beliefs, are the obvious and easiest scapegoats. the last thing anyone would think of doing would be to honestly accept the imprefections and fallabilities of their own.

religeons may be founded by those choosen by a god to channel its will to us, but books are written in human ink on human paper, and we've only these channelers claim as to the infallability of even their god. be it the god of judaism, christianity, islam and baha'i, or some committie of other divinities as the case might be.

nor is everyone who takes up the life of religeous leader inhierently pure in heart, nor immediately made so by their chosen task.

all of this applies with equal constancy to every belief.

god or gods may wish us well, but the infallability of anything that walks this earth on tangable legs needs to be taken with a very large grain of salt.

=^^=
.../\...

...as much as I try to tell myself that Muslims are peaceful people, and as much as I know there are a lot of peaceful people who call themselves Muslims, (...)
What does everyone else reckon?

I reckon that:

1.All "religions" are "cults". Of course.

from www.webster.com :


Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


and


Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: 'k&lt
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion


(bold mine)

2.WW1, Most of combatants were Christians. WW2, only a little minority were Muslim. Korea, Vietnam - Christians again, no Muslims. So what? Oh yeah, I forgot crusades, pogroms, KKK, Brits against Irish, IRA... So what, really?

3.You are using "cult" as per meaning nr.3 . Anyway, nr.1 states that "cult" is, in its first and foremost meaning, a part of "religion". Hence, you are just yelling "teh m00zleemz r teh evil" without being able (of course) of presenting us with any proof or clue to support your statement.

4.I can picture you singing as follows:

(from Grieg's Peer Gynt)

Akt 2, Scene 6
(Dovregubbens kongshal. Stor forsamling af hoftrolde, tomtegubber og hougmænd. Dovregubben i højsædet med krone og spir. Hans børn og nærmeste slægtninge til begge sider. Peer Gynt står fora ham. Stærk røre i salen.)
HOFTROLDENE
Slagt ham! Kristenmands søn har dåret
Dovregubbens veneste mø!
EN TROLDUNGE
Må jeg skjære ham i fingeren?
EN ANDEN TROLDUNGE
Må jeg rive ham i håret?
EN TROLDJOMFRU
Hu, hej, lad mig bide ham i låret!
TROLDHEKS (med en slev)
Skal han lages til sod og sø?
EN ANDEN TROLDHEKS (med retterkniv)
Skal han steges på spid eller brunes i gryde?


And I will reply:

DOVREGUBBEN
Isvand i blodet!


... HOFTROLD!!!

:p

An American talking to a Pakistani about India and Kashmir.
"Surely there must be some way for your two people to co-exist", said the American.
"You do not understand! We do not wish to co-exist with criminals; we will not live with evil on our doorstep!"

This example illustrates the general result of any conflict on the basis of religion, and on the most frightening scale. India and Pakistan have nuclear bombs; if there were not genuine disincentives, I am sure a huge massacre would have insued by now. I worry in this forum that when Atheists, Christians, and Muslims argue, and without mediation, the actual result is verbal violence, and words that lack construction. Surely words were not intended for argument of the agressive mood - listen to yourselves, would you talk to your loved ones like this without regretting it?

In any case, Islamic extremists are the people who should be targetted, not Moslems themselves. Islamic extremism against the west is forged from the idea of theocracy - to govern by religion. When one wars, it is to protect or gain. The current idea that Islamic extremists have is similar to that of Napoleon, and the Roman Empire, as these people cannot live without the world being ruled by Islam. Ask any ordinary Moslem, and he would find this unreasonable, and completely unfathomable. No country in the world is currently ruled by a theocracy (Afghanistan used to), and America will never have this thanks to overwhelming military force, and the constitution, which separates government from religion altogether; believe it or not but Moslems have brains! For example imagine Israel, and America, ruled by the Ten Commandments; it would be pretty hard to enforce "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife", because I simply would "bear false witness". It is that much of a no-brainer, even for Moslems - real moslems would never support Islamic extremists.

The eventual goal of Islamic extremists is not to scare people; their goal is to take over governments, as bin Laden has tried to accomplish in Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. These countries have outlawed him, and therefore the leader and co-founder of extremism is in exile from his own country. If the homeland of Islam does not want Osama bin Laden, then the homeland of Islam does not want Islamic extremism.

Finally, understand that Islamic extremists are exactly the same as the KKK, and other religious extremist groups. The difference between Islamic extremists, and say terrorists in America is law enforcement. You level Iraq (Used to have one of the best health systems in the world before the invasion; you know like UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE), and Afghanistan, you lose all law. How do you have intelligence agencies, Iraqs own CIA, FBI, NSA etc., take down local terrorism when the only building that could hold it was blown apart from the last American bomber? And what is more important; food, shelter, or law enforcement? The KKK ruled supreme for so long because equality in America when the KKK was ripe, was woeful, and therefore the idea of "Law Enforcement" was protect the whites, but not the blacks. You control crime, violent crime, with law enforcement - you place this model with the situation in Iraq, and suddenly 0.1% of Islam (i.e. Extremists), which probably amounts to about a million, will make a bang.

You get rid of the police; you get the looters in New Orleans. America does not experience terrorism from their own people because it is too difficult to carry out; it is a credit to all state employees for the wonderful job they do to make us feel safe. And turning back to Iraq, remember, the army cannot enforce law; only Iraq's own police, intelligence agencies, and people will be able to do that. One thing is for sure though - no country has gone through such anarchy as there is in Iraq, and gotten out the next decade, looking like the pearl of democracy that the US embodies.

My mistake... Vatican City is ruled by theocracy i think

My mistake... Vatican City is ruled by theocracy i thinkNot really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy#The_Vatican).

Posted by Jocabia

How do you calculate this likelihood?


Well considering the numerous amount of religions and gods that have existed throughout history (and consider that many religions in the past were polytheistic) what are the chances that your specific religion, and your specific God is the correct one? I am not positively going to deny that God exists, (again, no point trying to disprove a negative) but there really isnt enough evidence to live your life being convinced of a deity, let alone a specific one.

I'll type out a longer response when I get back from the gym

Well considering the numerous amount of religions and gods that have existed throughout history (and consider that many religions in the past were polytheistic) what are the chances that your specific religion, and your specific God is the correct one? I am not positively going to deny that God exists, (again, no point trying to disprove a negative) but there really isnt enough evidence to live your life being convinced of a deity, let alone a specific one.Most folks don't even bother to know what religions exist today, let alone which existed in ancient times. They just willfully ignore the alternatives so their own faith appears best to them. And those who only have the bible as a historical source are lost anyways. They'll never figure out that its accuracy regarding what folks really believed in ancient (pre-Ptolemaic, pre-Persian) times is zero.

...as much as I try to tell myself that Muslims are peaceful people, and as much as I know there are a lot of peaceful people who call themselves Muslims, there seems to be so many attacks by people claiming to be Muslims that I'm inclined to believe Islam is a violent cult after all. Just like Christianity is a generally peaceful religion with a few violent people in it, it seems that Islam is a generally violent religion with a few peaceful people in it.

What does everyone else reckon?
I don't see any particular reason to make a distinction between "religion" and "cult." There's no defining line between the two; it's just a matter of degrees.

I don't see any particular reason to make a distinction between "religion" and "cult." There's no defining line between the two; it's just a matter of degrees....and point of view.

...and point of view.
Not really. In fact, kind of the opposite.

People's points of view are what lead them to identify somebody else's beliefs as a "cult," while their own beliefs are a "religion."

I don't see any particular reason to make a distinction between "religion" and "cult." There's no defining line between the two; it's just a matter of degrees.

Why not? One could argue that, say, communism, is simply socialism to a greater degree, but you still clearly need a distinction between the two.

Why not? One could argue that, say, communism, is simply socialism to a greater degree, but you still clearly need a distinction between the two.
Only if the distinction is clear-cut and meaningful. Making a distinction where there actually isn't one is not helpful.

...as much as I try to tell myself that Muslims are peaceful people, and as much as I know there are a lot of peaceful people who call themselves Muslims, there seems to be so many attacks by people claiming to be Muslims that I'm inclined to believe Islam is a violent cult after all. Just like Christianity is a generally peaceful religion with a few violent people in it, it seems that Islam is a generally violent religion with a few peaceful people in it.

What does everyone else reckon?

Some would say that you spelt "cult" incorrectly, and it should be plural.

In any case, Islamic extremists are the people who should be targetted, not Moslems themselves.Easily said - difficult to accomplish. What defines 'Extremist'? The guys who build bombs? The ones who require submission from their wives? The ones who willingly submit to their husbands and raise their children to become like them? The ones who stab their sisters because they dare having relationships with the natives of the countries they emigrated to? The ones who - even though peaceful themselves - nonetheless are faithfully visiting mosques, and unwittingly provide the money that funds extremism, all in the name of 'Charity'? The Imans who teach children to segregate themselves from the natives? The thousands - happily including women and children - who protest caricatures and knighthoods, threatening Europe with its very own 9/11? There is no 'Black' or 'White', no 'Good' or 'Bad' muslim. There are only endless shades of grey.

There's plenty of 'Muslims' to which none of these apply. Emancipated girls who happily emulate their western classmates, boys to which the Quran is just another book (Though, I wouldn't consider them any more 'Muslims' than I'd consider Richard Dawkins a Christian). But the scale we're talking about is nonetheless rather more significant than 'Just a few extremists'. It includes large funding networks, down to the level of local mosques collecting charity. It includes indoctrination from the age children join kindergarten and onwards. It includes corrupt and state-controlled media, it includes the hatred fueled by powerlessness, by seeing the riches of the west, and remembering a greater past.

'Extremists' (I'll for now define them as Al Qaeda operatives) are just the tip of the iceberg. They aren't the reason, they're the result of a development that goes much deeper, and cannot be rooted out without spending generations on it - it took centuries to establish secularism in the west (And it is still fought about), and it's childish to assume that the same can be achived in the muslim world in mere decades. Funded by oil, manned by fastest population growth recorded in history, indoctrinated by restrictive regimes and militant immigrants, pushed away by the west, muslims have a difficult time resisting extremism. And unless you can cut off the funding and curtail the population growth, you're not going to see extremism falter.

Islamic extremism against the west is forged from the idea of theocracy - to govern by religion.No. That is the extremism targeting native regimes in the middle east and north africa. Muslim extremism against the west intends to expand, to regain former glory, and to avenge the humiliation of the muslim world in the 17th to 20th century.

real moslems would never support Islamic extremists.Depends on your idea of what constitutes a 'Real' muslim. One can of course use varying interpretations, one can manipulate scripture, one can outright ignore scripture - and it has all been done, in all religions -, but if you get down to it, the Qur'an is extremist. The rules it dictates are extremist, and, frankly, downright evil.

Now, this alone doesn't have to be all that bad - the old testament has the same problem, and yet the vast majority of Jews would consider stoning a girl for losing her virginity before marriage 'Evil'. The new testament, even though it's a watered down, somewhat more 'Liberal' version, is still filled with plenty of extremism (Getting more misogynistic the further you read. Thank you, Paul), yet the church (Or rather, the churches) have evolved, even admitting its past evils, even apologising for them.

There is nothing saying that Islam isn't capable of doing the same (And, while I lack the history background to be entirely certain of it, anecdotal evidence suggests that it has been doing this in the past), but the problem is that you have to first reach that point, which is a rather long and complex process.

But - and this is the problem -, saying that 'Real' muslims wouldn't support extremists is silly. Extremists are real muslims. They're not extremists because they want to have a 'Fun Time', they are extremists because they believe in their cause. And in the majority of cases, scripture is with them, not with the 'Liberal' muslims (Akin to how scripture is with Pat Robertson, not with Martin Niemöller).

By declaring them 'Wrong' muslims, you're doing two things. First, you're underestimating them, their resolve, and their potential support base. Second, you can effortlessly be proven wrong. And that's generally bad.

There cannot be a 'Liberal' Islam. Religions - particularly monotheistic religions, and particularly messianic religions -, are by their very definition militant. If they know the truth - and they believe they do know the truth -, it'd be wrong for them not to spread it. If they know the word of God, it'd be wrong for them not to follow it. For Islam, just like for Christianity, expansion until nothing but itself is left is the inevitable conclusion. The only way to break this cycle is to break the religion, to achive stable secularism, to force the church as far out of public life as is at all possible. This doesn't mean 'Liberalising' Islam - for religions are almost by definition not liberal. Their zeal and conservativism, their strict rulesets are their strength, they're what keeps them together -, it means breaking its power to the same degree the power of the Christian churches was broken in the last two hundred years. For they, too, aren't 'Liberal'. They simply do no longer have the influence and powerbase to execute their zeal to the degree they'd want - or indeed, need - to.

Islam on the other hand, still does. That (And Islam's by-and-large stricter, and somewhat more inhumane rulesets. I'm unaware of Christianity ever going nuts on the same scale the Taliban or the Saudis did/ do) is the whole problem.

These countries have outlawed him, and therefore the leader and co-founder of extremism is in exile from his own country. If the homeland of Islam does not want Osama bin Laden, then the homeland of Islam does not want Islamic extremism.You aren't overly familiar with Saudi Arabia, are you...?

I strongly suggest reading up on it. You may start here. (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/saudi.html)

I was a beleiver because that was the only thing I was raised to beleive. So you want to argue, that if a religion forbids people from ever leaving its beleif system with the threat of punishment, said religion is being consistent with its own claim that it advocates no compulsion. Nice.:rolleyes:

There is no compulsion in the acceptance of religion. Once you have become Muslim though, things become slightly different. One can theoretically leave Islam, just don't do it publicly. Doing so threatens the Iman of those around you, which is in part to why the punishment is there, to protect Islam.


I offered it as an opinion. Theres plenty of hadiths where Muhammad is portrayed as peaceful and an almsot equal amount where he is cruel and violent...he's not my prophet anymore so I have no problem accepting that he was a fallbile human being. I'll gladly offer you the hadiths, if you want but I do not really want to derail this conversation into wether or not Muhammad was a violent man. But since you asked so nicely, I'll give you just one from Sahih Bukhari. (I Guess you're Sunni, so this is your accepted version of the hadith).
I don't see how the hadith shows the prophet(pbuh) to be a violent person or power hungery as you said earlier.


Again, I'm not trying to paintbrush all Muslims..I'm saying that as an individual Muhammad was not always very pleasant.
He was the greatest of men.
And yes I can go in and out of religion if I want, that is my absoloute right.
No, Islam is not a game or something to take lightly, it is a commitment.

I do hope that at least you'll have the decency to admit that the sharia punishment for it is inappropriate in this day and age
Implemented properly, I see nothing wrong with sharia.

Depends on your idea of what constitutes a 'Real' muslim. One can of course use varying interpretations, one can manipulate scripture, one can outright ignore scripture - and it has all been done, in all religions -, but if you get down to it, the Qur'an is extremist. The rules it dictates are extremist, and, frankly, downright evil.


Well to start off, why is the Quran evil? What makes it extremist, which by the way is an opinion? Can you read Arabic? Can you understand Arabic well? Do you actually know what is in the Quran, or have you just read some English translation? Are you reading it literally, or are you trying to get the true meaning of it and the history behind the suras?

There cannot be a 'Liberal' Islam. Religions - particularly monotheistic religions, and particularly messianic religions -, are by their very definition militant. If they know the truth - and they believe they do know the truth -, it'd be wrong for them not to spread it. If they know the word of God, it'd be wrong for them not to follow it. For Islam, just like for Christianity, expansion until nothing but itself is left is the inevitable conclusion. The only way to break this cycle is to break the religion, to achive stable secularism, to force the church as far out of public life as is at all possible. This doesn't mean 'Liberalising' Islam - for religions are almost by definition not liberal. Their zeal and conservativism, their strict rulesets are their strength, they're what keeps them together -, it means breaking its power to the same degree the power of the Christian churches was broken in the last two hundred years. For they, too, aren't 'Liberal'. They simply do no longer have the influence and powerbase to execute their zeal to the degree they'd want - or indeed, need - to.


First you were talking about the Quran, now you say something about Islam that the Quran clearly disputes. The Quran tells us there are those who will not see the light, and those that will not hear the truth. (I'm being poetic with it) It tells us not to bother with these people, and not to force our beliefs on them as it is a waste of time. What about that? And, as a muslim in an ideal world, wouldn't i want everyone else to be a muslim too? I mean, i'm pretty sure christians would want everyone to be christian in their ideal world wouldnt they?

There is no compulsion in the acceptance of religion. Once you have become Muslim though, things become slightly different. One can theoretically leave Islam, just don't do it publicly. Doing so threatens the Iman of those around you, which is in part to why the punishment is there, to protect Islam.


Actually, if i remember correctly the Quran says that those that have been muslims but die in disbelief are counted as non-believers, i dont particularly recall anything about executing them for it. Besides, if muslims killed people who converted away, how could we convert them back? Muslim societies that do that do puzzle me.

Actually, if i remember correctly the Quran says that those that have been muslims but die in disbelief are counted as non-believers, i dont particularly recall anything about executing them for it. Besides, if muslims killed people who converted away, how could we convert them back? Muslim societies that do that do puzzle me.

The threat of death isn't found in the Quran, its in the hadith and unfortunately it ws declared Sahih a long long time, ago. Muhammad basically borrowed that punishment from the Old Testament.

There is no compulsion in the acceptance of religion. Once you have become Muslim though, things become slightly different. One can theoretically leave Islam, just don't do it publicly. Doing so threatens the Iman of those around you, which is in part to why the punishment is there, to protect Islam.


Why does an infintely powerful God such as Allah, need humans to protect his religion, is faith so weak that if Muslims discovered my apsostasy they would also abandon their religion? Frankly, that is quite pathaetic. Again, if you want to argue that forcing someone to stay in a religion is not compulsion, thats your arguement to make, just dont be surprised when nobody takes it seriously.:rolleyes:

I don't see how the hadith shows the prophet(pbuh) to be a violent person or power hungery as you said earlier.

What do you mean it doesnt show him to be violent? He is killing off people for their beleifs? Heres another one then if you aren't convinced.


(Sahih Bukhari 1.367)

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz:
Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."

Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet .

Soviestan, I'm not going to argue that Muhammad was the most evil man who ever lived, he certainly did do his fair share of good things. But he was still a fallible man who lived according to the rough and occasionaly violent morals of his time, I mean here we have him invading an unsuspecting village and picking brides for himself. He certainly isnt worthy of the excessive praise given to him by Muslims.

He was the greatest of men.

Alright I'll make it simple. Give me say, 10 reasons why he was better than Ghadhi.

No, Islam is not a game or something to take lightly, it is a commitment.

Yawn. Same thing can be said by the beleivers of any other religion, what you still don't understand is that my lack of beleif wasnt a choice I made, it involved a thought process where I realised that I shouldnt be beleiving in things without evidence for it. Do you know at least a little bit of basic Arabic Soviestan? You should know that whenever Muslims start on an action they say "Bis Millah al rahman al Rahim" (in the name of God, the most merciful the most compassionate). Why does a God who claims to have these qualities not live up to them? Why punish people for their beleifs, and not judge them based on the merits of their good and bad deeds. Not their religion.

Implemented properly, I see nothing wrong with sharia.

Sharia governs everything from the way you dress to the direction you face when you go to the bathroom. I assure you, you could NOT live up to its ludicrously draconian standards. Besides, it would create a society which punishes gays, cuts off thieves hands, stones people for Zina, and has rape laws that are completely ineffective. (Only four male witnesses can constitute evidence for the rape victim to bring charges...I hope you know how ridiculous that is). 7th Century laws belong back in the 7th Century.

Posted by Jocabia

How do you calculate this likelihood?

Alright, I'll type out a longer response this time. First of all not that my initial post on this topic was aimed at theists, who beleive in specific Gods as opposed to Deists who beleive in their own vague and impersonal God.

The likelyhood that any of these specific god associtaed with religions is extremely minute simply because of the numeorus religions, cults and Gods that have existed throughout history. Assuming that one of them is correct, you have the same chance of picking the right God, as you do of winning the lottery.

What makes many of these Gods, even more improbable is the baggage of extraordinary claims that come with beleiving in them. Muslims may beleive that Muhammad travelled to heaven on a winged horse (with a womans face) on the night of the Mijra. All three Abrahamic religions beleive that God gave Moses the ability to part the red sea with his magical staff. As Marcello Truzzi said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and so far NO proof that is convincing has been given. Now, I do not mean to sound agressive...but tell me jocabia, did you choose your religion after a process of scrutiny and objective anaylysis, or were you simply raised into that religion without looking at other alternatives, and you choose to stay in that religion for reasons of comfort or because you have faith. Thats perfectly fine, but even you must admit that statistically the chances that you just happened to have been born into the right religion are very minute.

Now the reasons I dont beleive in any kind of God (Deists are included in this part of my arguement) is again, simply because of a lack of proof. Sure, you could argue that there is no proof that he does not exist, but logically there is never an onus to disprove a negative. Just as no one can prove that fairies, unicorns and Santa Claus do not exist I cannot prove that God does not exist. But just as I disbeleif in other creatures of mythology (I apologise if you take offense to me relegating God to this level), due to a lack of evidence and even though I cannot prove their non-existance, similarly I do not beleive in God and the onus rests on either the positive or the negative claimant to justify said claim.

The likelihood that any of these specific god associated with religions is extremely minute simply because of the numerous religions, cults and Gods that have existed throughout history. Assuming that one of them is correct, you have the same chance of picking the right God, as you do of winning the lottery.

I don't agree with this - it's not that you're picking the right God, it's that you're discerning perceived intentions and living according to what you believe. Each and every religion throughout history can simply be said to be cultural interpretations of the one, overall being we refer to as God.

The point is that it's not a good argument against the existence of a God.

In fact there's no good argument against the existence.

The argument is 'why should anyone live by the rules of a God and why should those rules be any more valid that my neighbors?'

That's the real trouble.

A look at three possible afterlife scenarios.

1. Heaven-Hell Afterlife
If you believe in a religion like this and you have the right religion, you have gains that cannot be calculated. If this is how the afterlife is, and you picked the wrong religion, your suffering cannot be be calculated. There is also the possibility of everyone going to heaven anyway, so everything ends up equal.

2. Reincarnation

If you believe in reincarnation, the general goal is to be a good person (usually), therefore all you would have to do is be good. If you fail in this, you will have more chances in other lives, so being good is good for you, and for doing so you gain.

3. You just die

If you just die, and you believed in a religion, then you lose precious time on earth. By not having a religion and enjoying life, you have gained. By having a religion, you lose time on earth, and will not be compensated for it.

So as a summary, if one is not sure about the afterlife, wouldn't it be best to prepare for a Heaven-Hell scenario, as that is the only case where punishment is eternal?

(Sorry if this makes no sense, i know it doesn't directily have anything to do with Islam, or Islam being a cult.)

Posted by Barringtona

I don't agree with this - it's not that you're picking the right God, it's that you're discerning perceived intentions and living according to what you believe. Each and every religion throughout history can simply be said to be cultural interpretations of the one, overall being we refer to as God.


Well, I dont think Zeus, Krishna and Allah are interpretations of the one and same God, most cultures have been polytheistic anyway. Sure you could argue that Allah, and YHYW are the one and same God, but the problem arises when they make different, contradictory demands about how one should live their life.

The point is that it's not a good argument against the existence of a God.

But I was not arguing against the existance of a God, my position on theistic Gods and a Deistic one is different. My point is that there are so many theistic Gods spread out across so many different cultures that the chances of them picking the right God, or if you feel it is more appropriate, picking the right interpretation of God is extremely small.

In fact there's no good argument against the existence.

There need not be, there is no onus on me to prove why I dont beleive in God. Its not that I beleive that God does not exist, that would be a positive denial...it is that I lack beleif in a God due to a void of evidence. I never argued that he does not exist.

A look at three possible afterlife scenarios.

1. Heaven-Hell Afterlife
If you believe in a religion like this and you have the right religion, you have gains that cannot be calculated. If this is how the afterlife is, and you picked the wrong religion, your suffering cannot be be calculated. There is also the possibility of everyone going to heaven anyway, so everything ends up equal.

2. Reincarnation

If you believe in reincarnation, the general goal is to be a good person (usually), therefore all you would have to do is be good. If you fail in this, you will have more chances in other lives, so being good is good for you, and for doing so you gain.

3. You just die

If you just die, and you believed in a religion, then you lose precious time on earth. By not having a religion and enjoying life, you have gained. By having a religion, you lose time on earth, and will not be compensated for it.

So as a summary, if one is not sure about the afterlife, wouldn't it be best to prepare for a Heaven-Hell scenario, as that is the only case where punishment is eternal?

(Sorry if this makes no sense, i know it doesn't directily have anything to do with Islam, or Islam being a cult.)

No it would not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

We hear this one a lot, rewriting Pascal's wager will not fool us

The reasons why pascal's is wrong are in the article but I will re-post them
Here are the major flaws in it (though you have tried to reduce the last one in this form)

# 2.1 Assumes God rewards belief
# 2.2 Assumes Christianity is the only religion that makes such a claim
# 2.3 Does not constitute a true belief
# 2.4 Assumes one can choose belief
# 2.5 Measure theory
# 2.6 Assumes divine rewards and punishments are infinite
# 2.7 Ignores benefits/losses while alive

A look at three possible afterlife scenarios.

1. Heaven-Hell Afterlife
If you believe in a religion like this and you have the right religion, you have gains that cannot be calculated. If this is how the afterlife is, and you picked the wrong religion, your suffering cannot be be calculated. There is also the possibility of everyone going to heaven anyway, so everything ends up equal.

2. Reincarnation

If you believe in reincarnation, the general goal is to be a good person (usually), therefore all you would have to do is be good. If you fail in this, you will have more chances in other lives, so being good is good for you, and for doing so you gain.

3. You just die

If you just die, and you believed in a religion, then you lose precious time on earth. By not having a religion and enjoying life, you have gained. By having a religion, you lose time on earth, and will not be compensated for it.

So as a summary, if one is not sure about the afterlife, wouldn't it be best to prepare for a Heaven-Hell scenario, as that is the only case where punishment is eternal?

(Sorry if this makes no sense, i know it doesn't directily have anything to do with Islam, or Islam being a cult.)

Well, this is basically a kind of re-iteration of Pascals Wager, which is actually a fallacy. It does not consider that there could be other alternatives in how God chooses to reward or punish people. Could it not be that God punishes people who beleived due to faith, and rewards people who lived their life objectively and based their conclusions in logic. There is as much evidence for this God, as there is for a God who punishes people for their disbeleif and rewards people who had faith.

-Edit-

Looks like Upwards Thrust beat me to it, and explained it in more detail.

Well to provide a "bullet proof" theory would take a lot of typing, and right now i dont feel like pulling in all those variables, i was just looking at three possibilities, and i acknowledge that there are far more possibilities then those that i included.

No it would not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

We hear this one a lot, rewriting Pascal's wager will not fool us

The reasons why pascal's is wrong are in the article but I will re-post them
Here are the major flaws in it (though you have tried to reduce the last one in this form)

# 2.1 Assumes God rewards belief
# 2.2 Assumes Christianity is the only religion that makes such a claim
# 2.3 Does not constitute a true belief
# 2.4 Assumes one can choose belief
# 2.5 Measure theory
# 2.6 Assumes divine rewards and punishments are infinite
# 2.7 Ignores benefits/losses while alive

Will a God reward disbelief?
What claim is Christianity making in this case?
What exactly do you mean in 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5?
For 2.6, i acknowledge that there are variations in a Heaven-Hell scenario.

Well to provide a "bullet proof" theory would take a lot of typing, and right now i dont feel like pulling in all those variables, i was just looking at three possibilities, and i acknowledge that there are far more possibilities then those that i included.

Well, I've never heard a bullet proof theory explaining why we should live our lives convinced of God/ religion. I'd be very interested ot hear, as soon as your'e up to it then.

Well, I've never heard a bullet proof theory explaining why we should live our lives convinced of God/ religion. I'd be very interested ot hear, as soon as your'e up to it then.

Can't someone ever use a hyperbole?

:headbang:

NSG's a cult... etc.

FALSE! I demand the UN recognize NSG as a legitimate religion!

Will a God reward disbelief?

Why not, perhaps he is pleased to see that his creatures can reason and come to their own conclusions.

What claim is Christianity making in this case?

It's a Christian-Islamic claim, I do not know enough about Judaism. The claim is that God rewards people for having faith in him, and punishes disbeleif

What exactly do you mean in 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5?

He can explain the rest in better detail but 2.4 basically means that people cannot choose their own beleifs. I will use myself as an example...it was not a choice I made to apostasise from Islam, my brain just wasnt convinced. People cannot force belelifs on themselves if their mind is nor convinced of the truthfulness of said beleif.


For 2.6, i acknowledge that there are variations in a Heaven-Hell scenario.

You do realise that this acknowledgement destroys the credibility of Pascals Wager.

Pascal's Wager? This is Sparta!!!!!!

Can't someone ever use a hyperbole?

:headbang:

You do realise that there is as much evidence for a God who punishes the usage of hyperboles, as there is for one who punishes disbeleif.:p

You do realise that there is as much evidence for a God who punishes the usage of hyperboles, as there is for one who punishes disbeleif.:p

I must repent for my sins.

:headbang:

Well to start off, why is the Quran evil? What makes it extremist, which by the way is an opinion?Well, we could start with this (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/int/long.html)?

Can you read Arabic? Can you understand Arabic well? Do you actually know what is in the Quran, or have you just read some English translation?Oh, yes. The reason translations of the qur'an were (Are?) forbidden - so that nobody but muslims get to read it, avoiding the need to answer somewhat problematic questions and putting people off of assorted inhumane practices.

DENIED.

Are you reading it literally, or are you trying to get the true meaning of it and the history behind the suras?How about you ask the Wahhabi?

Trying to get around the problem of extremism by claiming that 'Hey, it isn't supposed to be taken seriously!' sort of falls flat on its face when the qur'an is interpreted in, lets say, their ways, ne?

And, as a muslim in an ideal world, wouldn't i want everyone else to be a muslim too? I mean, i'm pretty sure christians would want everyone to be christian in their ideal world wouldnt they?Already addressed in my first post. Which you should've read, given that you're quoting it, but apparently your short term memory kind of sucks.

Well, we could start with this (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/int/long.html)?

Oh, yes. The reason translations of the qur'an were (Are?) forbidden - so that nobody but muslims get to read it, avoiding the need to answer somewhat problematic questions and putting people off of assorted inhumane practices.

DENIED.

How about you ask the Wahhabi?

Trying to get around the problem of extremism by claiming that 'Hey, it isn't supposed to be taken seriously!' sort of falls flat on its face when the qur'an is interpreted in, lets say, their ways, ne?

Already addressed in my first post. Which you should've read, given that you're quoting it, but apparently your short term memory kind of sucks.

Well seeing as skeptic is part of the title of the website, i think you could say it is somewhat biased. As far as translations go, im simply saying that you cannot exactly understand everything in the Quran if you cannot understand Arabic, as English and Arabic are different languages. As well, it also makes you susceptible to a faulty translation as someone could say that what they wrote is a translation of a verse in the Quran, and they could easily change/twist its meaning.

When it comes to the Wahabis, all i can honestly say is that my beliefs seriously conflict with theirs, and in fact, they would probably consider me an infidel. They are very strict, they don't like any muslims that aren't Sunni, and they are the kind of people that have dragged Islamic societies and the reputation of Islam where they/it are/is today.

Already addressed in my first post. Which you should've read, given that you're quoting it, but apparently your short term memory kind of sucks.

Please forgive my short term memory for the slipup...

Well seeing as skeptic is part of the title of the website, i think you could say it is somewhat biased.Well, from my (Atheist) point of view, I'd say its the books they're quoting that are biased ;-)

This said, quotes tend to be less biased than interpretations, by virtue of being quotes (Although one can of course quote out of context). And as I linked to quotes... You're of course free to provide your own translations, if you wish to do so.

As far as translations go, im simply saying that you cannot exactly understand everything in the Quran if you cannot understand Arabic, as English and Arabic are different languages.No doubt. Some errors are inevitable. But in the case of such a vast amount of text, one can be reasonably certain that the gist's coming over, just as it does with the Bible, the Manifesto, Mein Kampf... Whatever.

As well, it also makes you susceptible to a faulty translation as someone could say that what they wrote is a translation of a verse in the Quran, and they could easily change/twist its meaning.Oh, absolutely. Hence why one should generally use several translations to see what's really off, and what's reasonably accurate.

All religions are cults.

All religions are cults.

No, ... everything is.

There are militants in every religeon, even Buddisim.

There are militants in every religeon, even Buddisim.

Though some religions are much better at inspiring violence than others, for example, Jainism is almost completely ineffective to garner a militant following.

Though I disagree that generalizing a major religion as a cult,... there are sub-divisions or sects on each of those religions that could be considered a cult:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin ---> this one's quite famous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_dei ----> highly controversial.