islam,, a danger or not

[neon tetra]

i'd make some crack about this being like going to church

Of course you would. Because you think that charity is the same as attending cult meetings.

[Simon of the Playa]

i'd make some crack about this being like going to church

tell us, sister.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ ... of_Friends

[JStep]

Me too, I just had to make the case for the facts of what atheism is vs what people like to say it is. Now... I'm off to my monthly atheist meetup! Huzzah! Fellowship and charity in the name of secular humanism, science, reason and YES atheism! Weee!

i'd make some crack about this being like going to church, but i think you get my point, there's no need to beat you about the head with it.

Believe me, we are well aware! LOL. But that's precisely the point. People need fellowship, they like to engage in charity, the like camaraderie. One of the missions of the group I belong to is to provide these things. Since we don't go to church, well most of us - some are Unitarians, we must create our own space in which to do these good things.

and no, i'm not denying history. not one bit. i'm just attempting, poorly, to make the point that existence (history and future included) could be far more fluid than most people believe.

it's also entirely possible i just did too many psychadelics as a teenager...

in'shah'allah. peace.

Guilty there as well. Quantum Mechanics is a valid scientific, if theoretical, study of these things. There is evidence that the world does indeed change based just on our perception of it. But so far, no evidence that the big things like earth orbiting the sun or the lack of a bearded man in the sky who sends you to hell if you don't sufficiently heap praise upon him and give him money are changed, regardless of our perceptions. So far anyway. LOL!

Ok, I really am going. Flame on!

[Simon of the Playa]

i'd make some crack about this being like going to church

Of course you would. Because you think that charity is the same as attending cult meetings.

well, it WAS better than kurosawa until it was interrupted by the Mickey Mouse Show.

[daratheresa]

buncha'awesome

*highfive*

sigh. if only everyone would actually listen to what other people say rather than talking over each other in increasingly louder voices. if nothing else we've proven that intelligent discourse is indeed possible.

[ygmir]

now you all went and did it!!!

[TomServo]

this is actually funny. to each their own

[can't sit still]

Dara doll, I agree with both you and Eric. Men tend to group for mutual protection. Groups tend to have different orientations. Resources are scarce. Many groups tend to be exclusive, to hoard or control resources. In the name of survival, some groups kill competitors.
Gods don't need resources. The natural gods were universal. The synthetic gods are not. The synthetic gods tend to be more exclusive and competitive than the natural gods.
If I worship the rain god and you worship the sun god, there isn't a built-in exclusivity.
If a person is going to worship, it makes far more sense to worship the natural gods than the synthetic gods. Worship them on a personal level and burn all those who claim to be priests.
The whole "god" idea gets tied up in semantics anyway. The natural gods have limitations. Some proponents of the synthetic gods claim that their preferred god has no limitations; all-seeing,, all-knowing,,, ever-present.

Imagine an ant standing on a rock at the edge of the ocean. This ant tells his fellow ants that he is intimate with the ocean and knows exactly what the ocean wants the ants to do.

A god doesn't need resources. Why would he demand sacrifices? If a god has limitations, is he still a god? If a god does NOT have limitations, man is not on the map,,, just like the ant on the edge of the ocean.
Chance are, any god that is known to man,,,, was invented by man.
Religion can be useful as a framework to teach a moral system to the children. When it morphs into a control system, , it tends towards exclusivity and control. These facets are only human, not divine.
If god has limitations and human facets, he can't be trusted any more than humans can be trusted.
So, if we leave a fallible god out of the picture, what do we follow? How about , follow the conquerers?
"The word `Jain` comes from the word `Jina` which means a conqueror. `Jina` comes from the root `Ji`-`to conquer`. It means conquering the passions like lust, anger, pride and greed are considered as the major passions, which are considered the enemy of the souls. It does not mean conquering nations. "
http://www.indianetzone.com/2/jain_philosophy.htm
How would the world look if everyone respected ALL life and worked to perfect their soul?

[thisisthatwhichis]

http://www.indianetzone.com/2/jain_philosophy.htm
How would the world look if everyone respected ALL life and worked to perfect their soul?

Oh, Jeez!!... now ya gone gone all hippy on us......

Christ, I bet you liked "Avatar in 3D", also................................

[can't sit still]

Sorry, didn't see Avatar. Does every planet have it's own planetary god/? Things could get pretty crowded;
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... +Beyond%29

Where's A--Z ? I want to know if there was ever a god of co-operation. Or a god of patience... A god of morality. How about a god of radical inclusion?

[Elderberry]

Shambala is correct IMO. Islam turned it's back on education several centuries ago. Islam and intelligence are less compatible than intelligence and most other religions. Intelligence shows that cooperation is a better strategy than unbridled competition. Spewing Intolerance is an invitation to have some other group drop a load of intolerance on YOU.

LOL And Christians haven't? No such thing as that evolution nonsense, we all know the earth is only 6000 years old and man walked with dinosaurs,hey we even have a museum you can visit if you want proof.

Now why don't you just stop it already with your thoughtless generalities? Your bigotry is showing.

JK

[can't sit still]

As usual, your ignorance is showing. Perhaps you could point to the era when the East embraced the industrial revolution to produce an exponential increase in food production.
Damascus had street lights when Londinium was just a bunch of mud huts. Islam was the flower of learning during the occupation of Spain. During the dark ages, all the wisdom of ancient Greece was preserved in the East.
Steelmaking was invented in Damascus and carried to Toledo. The East was the center of medicine for centuries. All the wonders of Alexandria, Damascus and Cairo,,, they all fell to ruin.
The population of Britain was 5 million for a 1,000 years. Only the industrial revolution allowed the growth of population to 80 million. Only the industrial revolution allowed the idle-rich to invent things that removed much of the hand-to-mouth existence.
I've traveled those lands. Desertification diminished the population and killed the flower of invention. Don't mix climate with religion. The renaissance was not driven by religion.

[FIGJAM]

Religion is like masterbation: It should be done in private and wash your hands afterwards.

[TomServo]

[youtube][/youtube]

[can't sit still]

Fuck, you're good !!
You nailed it.

[neon tetra]

[youtube][/youtube]



[youtube][/youtube]

[Elderberry]

http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5- ... islam.html

JK

[can't sit still]

Good article jk. When I started the thread, I didn't want to want to make it too confusing. I've been around lots of Sunni and quite a few Shia. I haven't been around the Wahhabists. From reading and reputation, they seem to be the Dangerous fundamentalists;
http://atheism.about.com/od/islamicsects/a/wahhabi.htm
While, it's not particularly accurate or fair, I can't list every group and sect.
Also, different areas have different traits. In Jordan, the people are quite calm. I was in Cairo during the Achille Lauro incident. The Egyptians were rioting.

The problem with Islam currently is that it teaches the Koran with little interest in anything else. Their golden age ended 700 years ago. "During the golden age of the Islamic empire (usually defined as a period between the tenth and thirteenth centuries"
"By the thirteenth century, according to Aziz Talbani, the 'ulama' (religious scholars) had become "self-appointed interpreters and guardians of religious knowledge.… learning was confined to the transmission of traditions and dogma, and [was] hostile to research and scientific inquiry"
You should read the article and judge for your self. The focus of education for the majority of muslims is, just the Koran.
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pa ... Islam.html
Theocracy is shit.

[The CO]

JKisha for the win.

[Elderberry]

Good article jk. When I started the thread, I didn't want to want to make it too confusing. I've been around lots of Sunni and quite a few Shia. I haven't been around the Wahhabists. From reading and reputation, they seem to be the Dangerous fundamentalists;
http://atheism.about.com/od/islamicsects/a/wahhabi.htm
While, it's not particularly accurate or fair, I can't list every group and sect.
Also, different areas have different traits. In Jordan, the people are quite calm. I was in Cairo during the Achille Lauro incident. The Egyptians were rioting.

The problem with Islam currently is that it teaches the Koran with little interest in anything else. Their golden age ended 700 years ago. "During the golden age of the Islamic empire (usually defined as a period between the tenth and thirteenth centuries"
"By the thirteenth century, according to Aziz Talbani, the 'ulama' (religious scholars) had become "self-appointed interpreters and guardians of religious knowledge.… learning was confined to the transmission of traditions and dogma, and [was] hostile to research and scientific inquiry"
You should read the article and judge for your self. The focus of education for the majority of muslims is, just the Koran.
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pa ... Islam.html
Theocracy is shit.

Also a good article. I wasn't aware of the Wahhabists or that that was the radical sect of Muslims. My entire problem with discussions on this topic is that it is usually between people that know even less about the religion than I do and the conversation is usually driven by fear and ignorance.

I am anti religion, period. On balance, nothing good comes of it. Just the fact that people can put their faith in fairy tail stories that they allow to guide their entire lives just out and out scares me. Anyone that would be that irrational about anything other than their religion would be committed to an asylum, yet belief in an imaginary god/ person is given a pass in our society. This is simply beyond my ability to comprehend.

JK

[can't sit still]

Well, we're definitely in agreement.
The invention of the synthetic gods was a dark chapter in man's history. Yahweh said that he was a jealous god. The old testament has everybody smiting each other. The conquests of Islam,,, the Crusades of christians,,,, all inspired by evil men in the name of control and extermination.
Man had plenty of conquests even while he worshiped the natural gods. Rome and Greece. This was more directed at empire than it was at extermination.
It took the man-created artificial gods to get extermination really rolling. That's not to say that only gods precipitated extermination. Idi Amin and many others got the ball rolling without invoking any god. They were mostly motivated by Darwinian pressures of competition.
Apparently, the madrassas have degenerated to just religious indoctrination.
Pakistan;
"60 percent of the population is under 18.
The result is one of the lowest literacy rates in the region: Of the country's 165 million citizens, 48 million are unable to read and write"
Illiterate people are more receptive to indoctrination. No easy answer when a theocracy works diligently at self-perpetuation.

[Elderberry]

Well, we're definitely in agreement.
The invention of the synthetic gods was a dark chapter in man's history. Yahweh said that he was a jealous god. The old testament has everybody smiting each other. The conquests of Islam,,, the Crusades of christians,,,, all inspired by evil men in the name of control and extermination.
Man had plenty of conquests even while he worshiped the natural gods. Rome and Greece. This was more directed at empire than it was at extermination.
It took the man-created artificial gods to get extermination really rolling. That's not to say that only gods precipitated extermination. Idi Amin and many others got the ball rolling without invoking any god. They were mostly motivated by Darwinian pressures of competition.
Apparently, the madrassas have degenerated to just religious indoctrination.
Pakistan;
"60 percent of the population is under 18.
The result is one of the lowest literacy rates in the region: Of the country's 165 million citizens, 48 million are unable to read and write"
Illiterate people are more receptive to indoctrination. No easy answer when a theocracy works diligently at self-perpetuation.

I like it when we agree on things!!! What a grand way to start the New Year!

JK

[JStep]

Well, we're definitely in agreement.
The invention of the synthetic gods was a dark chapter in man's history.

Where does this thesis of natural vs synthetic gods come from?

I would submit that it's a false paradigm, but I'd like to read more on this idea.

Is this another way of stating the paradigm of transcendent vs intrinsic divinity, or some other newer paradigm I haven't read about yet?

[Elderberry]

Well, we're definitely in agreement.
The invention of the synthetic gods was a dark chapter in man's history.

Where does this thesis of natural vs synthetic gods come from?

I would submit that it's a false paradigm, but I'd like to read more on this idea.

Is this another way of stating the paradigm of transcendent vs intrinsic divinity, or some other newer paradigm I haven't read about yet?

I doubt it. All gods are synthetic...i.e. bull shit.

JK

[Sail Man]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9516871516

We have many threats to our country. I believe that radical Islam is one of them.

[JStep]

Well, we're definitely in agreement.
The invention of the synthetic gods was a dark chapter in man's history.

Where does this thesis of natural vs synthetic gods come from?

I would submit that it's a false paradigm, but I'd like to read more on this idea.

Is this another way of stating the paradigm of transcendent vs intrinsic divinity, or some other newer paradigm I haven't read about yet?

I doubt it. All gods are synthetic...i.e. bull shit.

JK

And I meant dichotomy, not paradigm, but anyways....

[Elderberry]

Where does this thesis of natural vs synthetic gods come from?

I would submit that it's a false paradigm, but I'd like to read more on this idea.

Is this another way of stating the paradigm of transcendent vs intrinsic divinity, or some other newer paradigm I haven't read about yet?

I doubt it. All gods are synthetic...i.e. bull shit.

JK

And I meant dichotomy, not paradigm, but anyways....

Thanks for the clarification, but those words are still too big for my comprehension.

JK

[daratheresa]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/201 ... ainty.html

[JStep]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/201 ... ainty.html

Wow, this author dost protest much. And projects even more!

[Elderberry]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/201 ... ainty.html

Wow, this author dost protest much. And projects even more!

It's past time for Atheists to become arrogant...as it is past time for believers to always be given a pass on their irrational belief system, without acknowledging how it is holding back the advance of science and society.

JK