Brain this whole defending of atheism against religion based on the actions of Isis is seriously flawed. Hitler, stalin, Mao, many many many others of the worst people in history were atheist. That's not to say atheist are dangerous or evil, people (some people) are evil. Now you would probably claim that either you don't itentify those above as atheists (which contradicts your point about self identification), or atheism was not their driving factor , rather it was communism or fascism - well that would be the same as with Isis, they don't give a shot about Islam they claim to sure, they use it as a tool sure, but every day in New and more horrific ways possible they go against what Islam is about. You as anti theist are closer to a devote Muslim then anyone one of Isis knowing recruits.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Burning a man alive WTF
- Thread starter Danishfurniturelover
- Start date
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I'm not sure how I can be any more clear. I have not changed my opinions based on ISIS, I do not base my arguments on ISIS, I don't think I will change my opinions when(/if) ISIS are defeated. They raise these issues in the public consciousness, but my arguments are not based on what they do. I oppose all religion, most of the time. I discuss things on here when they come up and when I have the time. I have mentioned in the past that the most evil done by Islam is being done towards Muslims, of this I remain fairly certain.
I have to take you up on Hitler. You may claim that he was an atheist, I disagree. You may even claim that his regime was an atheistic one, I think that's ahistorical. I will only ask you to back up your claims with some evidence as you're the one who made it. On Stalin and Mao I have no great disagreement with your claim.
Atheism in itself is not a position on morality (other than the rejection of religion as the source of it I suppose). It's purely the rejection of the theistic claims. Atheists may be psychopaths, sociopaths, fascists (although rare), communists (much more common), socialists, capitalists, nationalists, racists, and just about every non-religious "-ist" in the dictionary.
I'm not claiming that my morals are derived from atheism. There seems to be a pretty strong correlation between secular humanism and atheism, something I believe stem in part from the way of thinking within both those groups and in part just from cultural reasons related to what happens when people realize that what they've been told is the source for their morality is a work of fiction. Either way, that's not really the point. The point is that I haven't claimed that all atheists are good people or that one religious person becoming an atheist would make them a better person.
What I'm claiming is that I think the world would be a better place with less religiosity. That I don't believe morality comes through us from a supernatural being through revelation of holy texts to pre-literate people. That I believe all the GHod claims to be equally false (I believe in exactly one less GHod than the monotheists - out of thousands of proposed Gods). I claim that faith is an enemy of rationality. None of my claims are impacted one iota by any historical figure being an atheist.
You may be right that in the case of ISIS religion is only a tool and that these people are less religious than me. I find that hard to believe myself, and you offer no evidence for your claim. But religious people claiming that they know the truth about GHod/religion/faith/scripture/holy books/holy men/prayer and that others are wrong is a bit white noise to me. I'm not a theologian, I don't know of any accepted standard for judging who are the "real Muslims". I think your definition of what that means will differ to that of others. As with most things with religion it's all a bit relative.
Edit: If you don't mind, and I realize some of my posts are long, so it may not be entirely convenient. Would you mind pointing out to me where I "defended atheism against religion based on the actions of Isis"? This is something I'm not at all a fan of and something I certainly didn't do on purpose. If it came off that way I would want to make sure I'm clearer in the future. I believe the arguments for atheism are much too strong and too well reasoned to even consider having to bring in a band of half-wits like ISIS into the discussion.
Last edited:
On Hitler, and Im no expert, wasnt his beliefs based on the racial purity of the German people, eugenics gone mad, Darwinism twisted to its most horrendous form? He was anti religious (this has been documented; as he gassed a lot of priests as well), and I remember reading somewhere that he wanted to replace religion with a form of Germanic mysticism - I don't have the links sorry)
As for you saying it's not about Isis, but also saying that you think that Muslims (Muslim religion) pose the biggest threat... The problem I have about this is the generalisation, there is no one Islam there are hundreds if not thousands of sects. To say the Muslim religion poses the biggest threat is as dumb as saying that white people pose the biggest threat. All the muslim terrorist groups (as far as I know, again no expert) come from a couple of sects (whabism and I think Sufism (not sure on second one) would it not be more accurate to point this out rather than saying that the Muslim religion poses the biggest threat? In fact as an intellectual is that not your duty?
My friend the other day, an Indian Hindu was stopped as he was walking home by two drunk guys who called him the son of al bagdadi (or however you spell it), he was threatened and they forced him to take a selfie with them. Now although this is not the worst thing to happen in the world (although he was scared), I belive this is the result of the media use of language on these issues, all Muslims or even people that look like they might be Muslim are suspect or at least singled out for ridicule, by saying things like 'at this time the Muslim religion posses the biggest threat' you are contributing to this, so not only is it an ignorant statement it's also a dangerous one.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I wouldn't consider German mysticism atheism, but I suppose it's a question of definition. If you think ideas about racial purity, eugenics, social darwinism and killing priest is incompatible with religion I think you need to have another look at the history books! Hitchens dispels the myth of Hitler being an atheist rather nicely and effectively, unless you have reasons to disagree with him on this topic I will take up no more time on this in this thread as it's getting very off topic. For a short video version of what Hitchens has to say on this:
I have already pointed out that I my problems do not only lie with the extremists and the terrorists. I'm getting slightly tired of repeating myself on this point and I wish you would stop basing your arguments on the contrary.
I feel sorry for your friend. There are too many idiots in the world.
For my statement to be ignorant I think it would first have to be proven to be false. As you can see on the previous page I wasn't at all convinced by Dubai when he claimed I was wrong despite him writing an almost forum-busting post. I don't see why you would think I would be by you just claiming that my opinion is dumb and ignorant.
Yes, sometimes opinions are dangerous. That doesn't make them wrong and it doesn't make it wrong to utter them. Sometimes silence on an issue can be just as dangerous, or more dangerous, than speaking out.
Yeah I don't have Dubai's flair for writing (loved his post by the way) or his patience. So no forum busting post from me. But I will again pull you up on saying that the Muslim religion is the biggest threat at the moment.... You do know that there is no Singular 'Muslim religion' there are several interpretations so when you say Muslim religion , which sect and interpretation are you talking about?
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I disagree that I have to specify a sect or interpretation. If pushed I would probably say Wahhabism is one that really irks me, the international funding, the willingness to play cynical geopolitics along with practices that are to me unacceptable. But this is not in any way to say that this is the only sect or interpretation I'm in disagreement with.
Over to you... Which religions do you think are bigger threats than Islam (combined) at the moment then? Surely if my opinion is ignorant and dumb you must easily think of several examples? (I can only think of one decent option myself)
You miss my point entirely, to say Islam is the biggest threat is to lump all Islam together.
This is entire false and you should know better.
Islam doesn't exist as one homogenous group. By describing it as such you are doing a disservice to any valid arguement you may have. You are being decisive, inaccurate and patently doing exactly what people like Isis would want you to do.
Let's look at your statement 'Islam poses the greatest threat'
Does that include the Kurds (vast majority of which are Sunni Muslim) who actually on the front line fighting Isis? Are they the greatest threat to us?
How about the Alavi, a somewhat humanist interpretation of Islam, one of their mantras is (I'm paraphrasing) 'it doesn't matter what GHod you believe in or if you belive in none, as long as your heart and actions are good'
Are they also the biggest threat?
I could go on but hopefully you get my point and see how seriously wrong you lumping Islam together is.
This is entire false and you should know better.
Islam doesn't exist as one homogenous group. By describing it as such you are doing a disservice to any valid arguement you may have. You are being decisive, inaccurate and patently doing exactly what people like Isis would want you to do.
Let's look at your statement 'Islam poses the greatest threat'
Does that include the Kurds (vast majority of which are Sunni Muslim) who actually on the front line fighting Isis? Are they the greatest threat to us?
How about the Alavi, a somewhat humanist interpretation of Islam, one of their mantras is (I'm paraphrasing) 'it doesn't matter what GHod you believe in or if you belive in none, as long as your heart and actions are good'
Are they also the biggest threat?
I could go on but hopefully you get my point and see how seriously wrong you lumping Islam together is.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Not sure if bringing it upon myself makes it better or worse
To be serious, I agree with much of what you (as is usually the case).
You make a lot of points in your post, I'm not entirely sure it's feasible to cover them all point by point. Not sure the forum would handle the post lengths, and I'm not sure I have the time. So I've attempted to look at a few points I think are key. If you feel I've dodged an important point or question by doing so please feel free to point those out to me once more
1. Religions as a tool
I disagree that religions are just a tool. I think it's also a source for conflict, hate and war. Would the current situation in Israel and Palestine really be as bad if not for the ancient holy books and their content? Would it be as locked. I really don't think so.
If I accept, for the sake of argument, that religions are just a tool how do you compare religions as tools to other ideologies. Could one say that equally ideologies like communism, fascism, stalinism and so on (you'll notice I just about managed not to Godwin myself) are "just tools"? They have been used in very similar ways to religion as tools, I think you must agree. But is there a clear separation in your mind between these ideologies and religions that make religions "just tools" whereas the same can not be said about political ideologies?
I also disagree that religions are just tools in the arsenals of nations. Would you describe the revolution (used reluctantly as a term) in Iran as a nation using one of the tools in it's arsenal? It seems to me that religion was very much a key part in what changed that nation rather fundamentally until it perhaps no longer really can be seen as the same nation. Religions, it seems to me, at least influence how nations form and shape and how they act geopolitically.
2. The wrongdoings of religions other than Islam
You will find very little argument from me. The actions of American Christians in developing countries in questions like homosexuality is despicable. The problem is that as despicable as it is it's also to an extent internally consistent with their worldview. This is part of my dislike of religions in general. I don't think you will find many groups of people who agree more with you than the "atheist communities" (for lack of a better term). And I think you'll have to search long and far for more consistency on such issues than that provided by the atheist intellectuals like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennet just to mention the "big 4". As an example Hitchens was ruthless against Mother Theresa, and rightly so in my mind.
3. Islam being singled out
You might be right that there is a media bias that is unfair. I'm certain there are racists, nationalists, xenophobes and bigots in the general population who revel in the fact that it's "the Muslims" that are targeted. In the hours following the Norwegian terror attacks a couple of years back the reactions on social media when some people at first assumed this was Islamist terrorism were as shocking as they were a stain on our all in all decent-ish society. Just as a quick example.
I do however continue to disagree that Islam isn't a greater threat at this time and I really struggle to see how you've argued convincingly against it in your post. You give several good examples of other religions causing atrocities (or is that being used as a tool to cause atrocities?), but you spend very little time explaining how these pose an equivalent threat when compared to Islam. Perhaps I was being hyperbolic comparing a nuclear Iran to Myanmar, but I think the point still stands.
I'm assuming you're not saying that all religions currently pose an equal threat. Sam Harris likes the Jainist example, Hitchens frequently used the Quakers. The Amish get mentioned quite often. Although there's a latent threat in all these forms of irrationality, I really struggle to see how they're equivalent at this point in time. So, if you don't mind. As you're claiming that Islam doesn't deserve singling out, who does? If possible in a ranked order, of course some grouping is fine if you think there are equivalents. Is there a top 3 that are equivalent in your mind? Or a top 5? A top 2 with 3 close chasers?
If Islamophobia is "picking on Islam" (I'm as happy to use your definition as any other for a term that seems ill defined and misused more often than not), I disagree that it's illogical. Or at least you have a lot more work ahead of you to prove that it is. It seems to me that you must either argue for how all religions pose an equal threat, or you must argue for some "hierarchy of threat" (axis of evil might be the description others would perhaps have chosen) I fail to see how you've done either. If this is a false dichotomy and a misunderstanding on my part I apologize in advance.
4. Where we agree, at least to an extent
I agree that there is certainly illogical elements at least to opposing Islam whilst supporting Christianity, or the other way around. It's part of why I think the atheist position is the better position to take. But this is a different discussion.
Other than the use of the word "unemotionally" I agree with most of your last paragraphs. A lack of emotion is is not a goal at all for me.
I agree that religions defanged would be a huge step in the right direction. And I agree that religion does offer comfort, solace and perhaps even happiness and flourishing to many. It's part of why I only really discuss this with people that are "willing". I don't knock on doors to tell people about the wonderful news of atheism. I don't feel that I have the right to attempt (and fail) to take that comfort away from people without any request or provocation. No matter how factually correct I feel I am. I have similar ambiguous feelings if people are getting a placebo effect out of bunk alternative medicine.
However I think that comfort and solace is part of why religion must also be opposed and criticized. Because I think those are false promises, and I think that's dangerous. To return to my previous analogy communism offered hope, comfort, solace, belief to many people. When such hope is false it's a reason to oppose an ideology, not to leave it alone. No doubt change, if it happens, will be generational - as it's mostly been so far. No doubt one doesn't have to be a world-changing inventors, scientists, leaders or thinkers to find comfort and solace in something other than religion.
As a final question. I assume you agree that what's happened with Christianity in general over the last 100 years has been progress. (Of course not to say that the progress has been linear, unopposed or without considerable need for further progress still remaining). Do you think a similar progress has happened within Islam? What do you think would encourage a similar progress within Islam in the future?
Again, suffice it to say, braine, I have a reply for this one.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I do feel you're missing the point somewhat. However, you'll have to wait for a bit.braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Well, in a word... "no" to most of your questions.
I don't think that invalidates my statement though. I mentioned previously how people have argued that in the 1930s the Catholicism could be seen as the most dangerous religion because of it's alliances and support of fascism and national socialism. Does a statement like that mean that all Catholics or sub-sects are as dangerous? Of course not.
If I claim that Buddhism is relatively harmless, that doesn't mean that all forms of Buddhism everywhere are harmless.
If I think about political ideologies. If someone told me they think communism was the most dangerous at some point in history I could easily agree without having to include all versions of communism or all followers of that ideology.
It's not my wish to offend with this stuff, and I realize that I can be seen as generalizing too much. I just think that overall, Islam poses the greatest threat at this point in time.
Would you agree with me if I instead said "I think some sects of Islam pose the greatest threat of any religions at this point in time? I don't think the meaning of the two statements are very different at all although I realize that one might be seen as less offensive.
Again. Which religions currently are the most dangerous in your opinion?
Again, suffice it to say, braine, I have a reply for this one.
I would be somewhat disappointed if you had no reply.
It wouldn't be the first or last time I've missed the point...
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
Well, in a word... "no" to most of your questions.
I don't think that invalidates my statement though. I mentioned previously how people have argued that in the 1930s the Catholicism could be seen as the most dangerous religion because of it's alliances and support of fascism and national socialism. Does a statement like that mean that all Catholics or sub-sects are as dangerous? Of course not.
If I claim that Buddhism is relatively harmless, that doesn't mean that all forms of Buddhism everywhere are harmless.
If I think about political ideologies. If someone told me they think communism was the most dangerous at some point in history I could easily agree without having to include all versions of communism or all followers of that ideology.
It's not my wish to offend with this stuff, and I realize that I can be seen as generalizing too much. I just think that overall, Islam poses the greatest threat at this point in time.
Would you agree with me if I instead said "I think some sects of Islam pose the greatest threat of any religions at this point in time? I don't think the meaning of the two statements are very different at all although I realize that one might be seen as less offensive.
Again. Which religions currently are the most dangerous in your opinion?
I would be somewhat disappointed if you had no reply.
It wouldn't be the first or last time I've missed the point...
Well, in a word... "no" to most of your questions.
I don't think that invalidates my statement though. I mentioned previously how people have argued that in the 1930s the Catholicism could be seen as the most dangerous religion because of it's alliances and support of fascism and national socialism. Does a statement like that mean that all Catholics or sub-sects are as dangerous? Of course not.
If I claim that Buddhism is relatively harmless, that doesn't mean that all forms of Buddhism everywhere are harmless.
If I think about political ideologies. If someone told me they think communism was the most dangerous at some point in history I could easily agree without having to include all versions of communism or all followers of that ideology.
It's not my wish to offend with this stuff, and I realize that I can be seen as generalizing too much. I just think that overall, Islam poses the greatest threat at this point in time.
Would you agree with me if I instead said "I think some sects of Islam pose the greatest threat of any religions at this point in time? I don't think the meaning of the two statements are very different at all although I realize that one might be seen as less offensive.
Again. Which religions currently are the most dangerous in your opinion?
I would be somewhat disappointed if you had no reply.
It wouldn't be the first or last time I've missed the point...
Yes I would agree with that (if we are just looking at religion), at the moment some sects of Islam pose the greatest threat... what's more they need to be defeated, through a variety of methods including militarily.
I think that's fair, I would be 'happier'/more comfortable if you named those sects.... You see you are intelligent, some people will listen to your views, but I feel you do yourself a disservice by using general terms... When the reality is much more specific, and you are intelligent enough to know that.
But there is no one Islam, and nor is the problem Islam..... certain sects, yes. but by just saying Islam is ridiculous.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
So a small change in my formulation, that essentially doesn't change the content of what I'm saying other than slightly clarifying it... This changes my views from ignorant, dumb and dangerous to something you essentially agree with?
I still disagree. If several sects of one larger religion are the biggest threat then it follows to me that the religion as a whole can also be described as the greatest threat, unless there's some massive protective influence from the other sects - something I doubt. I've also stated repeatedly that I think religious moderates are part of the problem.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Not a small change, a ducking huge one....Immense. Annnddd there is a massive protective influence from the other sects..... Who is fighting Isis on the ground?
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I don't think that protective influence is great enough to sufficiently offset the negatives to invalidate my claim. The protective influences you talk about are present in other religions too with various sects, hardly unique for Islam.
In short I don't think I'm saying that all of Islam is the same by saying that Islam is the biggest threat. It's simply not the case. Islam is frequently referred to as one of the large religions, just like the other large religions there are many sects - often mutually exclusive, often with open or covert conflict between them. Essentially you're reading what I'm saying in a way it's not intended, that's you inferring stuff that was never implied. It's the same as if I say "Christianity...." or "Buddhism..." or "Hinduism..." and make whatever statement. Almost regardless of what I add after that people can claim that it's a generalization and not true for all sects. Which is a point worth remembering, but that doesn't invalidate the statements.
I have a very strong feeling we're just not going to agree on this, and probably we should just agree to disagree. If nothing else I think I've made my opinion abundantly clear and it seems you agree with that, but just not with the phrasing. We also agree that the claim "Islam is a religion of peace" is ridiculous, so that's something.
And again. I will ask who is fighting Isis on the ground.... Who is in the front line?
To be honest this a massively complex situation and religion actually plays a small part of it, apart from being used as a
Tool . But by setting up a them vs us senario, which you seem adamant in doing (with 2 billion people), despite me showing the very real and obvious flaws in you arguement/generalisation, who would appreciate your words? The Kurds (as oneof many majority Muslim groups fighting Isis) who are actually on the front line being killed by this fudgewits - or Isis themselves who want to make this a 'them vs us ' conflict? Think about that a little while.
Words a powerful. Think on those you use.