Islam and depictions of Muhammad

[zag]

There are plenty of Islam followers who don't riot and murder people, just like there are plenty of Christians that don't campaign to remove evolution from education and burn Korans. Dumb idiots exist everywhere but religion is rather easy to twist to ones own ends as it is all about telling people what to believe to start with, its not that much of a leap.

 

The main problem is these normal moderate Muslims of which I agree are the vast majority never come out and publicly denounce it.

 

If they did then the world would be a much better place I think.

 

There is a strange silence from them each time the next atrocity comes along and I really don't get why.

[andyturpie]

agnosticism is the way forward. I'm not a betting man lol

[localzuk]

agnosticism is the way forward. I'm not a betting man lol

 

We need militant agnostics. That'd be a laugh.

 

"I'm not sure if there's a God or not! Eat lead!!' :-p

[SYNACK]

' Eat lead!!' :-p

 

I give you the gift of uncertainty, you may/may not wake up in the afterlife and meet a nice black cat that used to belong to the imagination of a nice man names Schrodinger

[LosOjos]

The main problem is these normal moderate Muslims of which I agree are the vast majority never come out and publicly denounce it.

 

If they did then the world would be a much better place I think.

 

There is a strange silence from them each time the next atrocity comes along and I really don't get why.

 

Perhaps I watch too many conspiracy videos on YouTube, but it seems that the public denouncing of these atrocities is somewhat pushed under the rug. Religious leaders do indeed come forward and denounce the atrocities committed in the name of their religion, we just rarely hear it above the din of name calling and finger pointing.

 

All religious extremists, regardless of their religion, make this world a much more dangerous and horrifying place to live.

 

I also disagree with the "extreme atheists" (granted, no atrocities have been committed by them yet!) who believe that everybody with religious beliefs is a damn fool and should be shook until they denounce all faith. Faith itself is not a problem, it is when people take their faith and force it on to others or judge others by it that it becomes a problem in my opinion.

[SYNACK]

Perhaps I watch too many conspiracy videos on YouTube, but it seems that the public denouncing of these atrocities is somewhat pushed under the rug. Religious leaders do indeed come forward and denounce the atrocities committed in the name of their religion, we just rarely hear it above the din of name calling and finger pointing.

 

All religious extremists, regardless of their religion, make this world a much more dangerous and horrifying place to live.

 

I also disagree with the "extreme atheists" (granted, no atrocities have been committed by them yet!) who believe that everybody with religious beliefs is a damn fool and should be shook until they denounce all faith. Faith itself is not a problem, it is when people take their faith and force it on to others or judge others by it that it becomes a problem in my opinion.

 

Thank the media/govt for that one. Nothing brings a society of angry humans together like a common enemy and if they are all worrying about that then they are not paying too close attention to what is going on at home.

 

I agree that all religious extremists are a problem magnified by the lenses of societies looking for a scapegoat to capture the publics malice so that it is not directed inward or upward at their own governments.

[localzuk]

I also disagree with the "extreme atheists" (granted, no atrocities have been committed by them yet!) who believe that everybody with religious beliefs is a damn fool and should be shook until they denounce all faith. Faith itself is not a problem, it is when people take their faith and force it on to others or judge others by it that it becomes a problem in my opinion.

 

The thing I find interesting about it all is that if the beliefs of religious people were described without 'religion' then the believers would fall within a number of mental illnesses...

[LosOjos]

The thing I find interesting about it all is that if the beliefs of religious people were described without 'religion' then the believers would fall within a number of mental illnesses...

 

Very true! Although most religious bods won't walk down the street talking to their god(s) out loud; they'd look crazy!

[Disease]

extreme atheists, that's what Dawkins has become, he went from having a valid view to becoming just another extremist.

[tmcd35]

I give you the gift of uncertainty, you may/may not wake up in the afterlife and meet a nice black cat that used to belong to the imagination of a nice man names Schrodinger

 

Just want to be clear - does this mean the cat was dead?

[BassTech]

I don't care what anyone says, NOTHING justifies the killing innocent civilians.

 

They are sick, twisted people - nothing more, nothing less.

Edited September 20, 2012 by BassTech

[SYNACK]

Just want to be clear - does this mean the cat was dead?

 

Now that all depends of the beliefs of the observer, to be fair it was never really alive to start with as it was all in his head but that goes along with the subject matter anyway - sorry, couldn't resist

[pcstru]

I also disagree with the "extreme atheists" (granted, no atrocities have been committed by them yet!) who believe that everybody with religious beliefs is a damn fool

Ok, with you up to that point.

and should be shook until they denounce all faith.

But ... your evidence that anyone is demanding this is ...?

Faith itself is not a problem, it is when people take their faith and force it on to others or judge others by it that it becomes a problem in my opinion.

 

But belief without action would be ... apart from anything else, not credible.

[tmcd35]

Now that all depends of the beliefs of the observer, to be fair it was never really alive to start with as it was all in his head but that goes along with the subject matter anyway - sorry, couldn't resist

 

Ha-ha, I miss-read this in iSpy. Thought you were replying to @Lee91's post...

 

NOTHING justifies the killing innocent civilians

 

Now that all depends of the beliefs of the observer

[LosOjos]

But ... your evidence that anyone is demanding this is ...?

 

Just listen to the way Richard Dawkins, for example, speaks to and about religious people; he clearly sees them as total idiots. Of course I'm not suggesting he literally wants to shake them in to submission, don't be so literal!

 

But belief without action would be ... apart from anything else, not credible.

 

It's a perfectly reasonable proposition to believe in something without seeing fit to harm/kill somebody who doesn't believe the same thing.

[localzuk]

Just listen to the way Richard Dawkins, for example, speaks to and about religious people; he clearly sees them as total idiots. Of course I'm not suggesting he literally wants to shake them in to submission, don't be so literal!

 

I don't see a problem with him having disdain for religious people - he doesn't use this to actually attack them, just write books and talk in interviews etc... I hold disdain for various groups, nothing wrong with it.

[LosOjos]

I don't see a problem with him having disdain for religious people - he doesn't use this to actually attack them, just write books and talk in interviews etc... I hold disdain for various groups, nothing wrong with it.

 

It's his attitude towards all religious people I don't like. Not everybody who is religious is responsible for or even supports the atrocities committed in that particular religions name just as not every German is responsible for the two World Wars or the various horrors surrounding those (though to listen to some people, you'd think they were!).

 

In lowering himself to attacking an entire group of people based solely on their religion, he's doing nothing but inciting yet more hatred in the name of religion [ironically!]

[SYNACK]

Ha-ha, I miss-read this in iSpy. Thought you were replying to @Lee91's post...

 

Classic - that was not my intention.

 

On that note though this all gets quite philosophical quite quickly with regards to killing of the innocent. Yes I agree that it is wrong and bad but the world is not perfect. Large amounts of civilians were killed in world wars to prevent greater genocides, it quickly descends into needs of the many weighed against the needs of the few and un-crossable lines that end up being crossed for survival. Its not a binary thing but rather a constantly changing border as to what is right and what is justified created by the many.

 

In this and many other situations certainly killing the innocent civilians is unjustified but at a different time in a different set of circumstances may even have been a necessity.

 

The truly dangerous thing in a constantly changing and adapting society is absolutes, this is the one true god for everyone and it is unarguable for example. This perceived truth does not adapt and so quickly becomes dangerous as for those that will not allow for the possibility of it being disproved end up stuck applying an absolute from a different time and environment to a situation that it may be entirely unsuited for.

 

Right and wrong themselves as a fixed concept is extremism.

[localzuk]

It's his attitude towards all religious people I don't like. Not everybody who is religious is responsible for or even supports the atrocities committed in that particular religions name just as not every German is responsible for the two World Wars or the various horrors surrounding those (though to listen to some people, you'd think they were!).

 

In lowering himself to attacking an entire group of people based solely on their religion, he's doing nothing but inciting yet more hatred in the name of religion [ironically!]

 

I can see his point though - if those moderate religious people didn't exist, then there couldn't be any extremists doing stupid things.

[pcstru]

Just listen to the way Richard Dawkins, for example, speaks to and about religious people; he clearly sees them as total idiots. Of course I'm not suggesting he literally wants to shake them in to submission, don't be so literal!

Right. So you were indulging in 'inflamatory' rhetoric and there is no evidence for your claim. Fair enough.

It's a perfectly reasonable proposition to believe in something without seeing fit to harm/kill somebody who doesn't believe the same thing.

 

That might be. But if you believe something, it does change the way you act. If it didn't, how do can anyone tell that you actually believe it? I was under the impression (for instance) that Christians were obliged to take the word of Jesus out into the world and save other peoples souls. It is a sin for them not to. So how exactly does that work with "not shoving it down other peoples throat"?

[localzuk]

Classic - that was not my intention.

 

On that note though this all gets quite philosophical quite quickly with regards to killing of the innocent. Yes I agree that it is wrong and bad but the world is not perfect. Large amounts of civilians were killed in world wars to prevent greater genocides, it quickly descends into needs of the many weighed against the needs of the few and un-crossable lines that end up being crossed for survival. Its not a binary thing but rather a constantly changing border as to what is right and what is justified created by the many.

 

In this and many other situations certainly killing the innocent civilians is unjustified but at a different time in a different set of circumstances may even have been a necessity.

 

The truly dangerous thing in a constantly changing and adapting society is absolutes, this is the one true god for everyone and it is unarguable for example. This perceived truth does not adapt and so quickly becomes dangerous as for those that will not allow for the possibility of it being disproved end up stuck applying an absolute from a different time and environment to a situation that it may be entirely unsuited for.

 

Right and wrong themselves as a fixed concept is extremism.

 

A controversial view about killing in wars is that it is good for society. For example, we now have a massive 'lower class' group of people (eg. chavs etc...) which in earlier times would have been soldiers for their lord, king or country depending on the time period. We don't have that now.

[SYNACK]

A controversial view about killing in wars is that it is good for society. For example, we now have a massive 'lower class' group of people (eg. chavs etc...) which in earlier times would have been soldiers for their lord, king or country depending on the time period. We don't have that now.

 

That's just it, right and wrong are determined by the majority of the time and place. You can have your own personal views but these will also be coloured by your own situations. Society is not a worked out thing really and largely amounts to barely suppressed squabbling between different sized groups whether that be sports teams or countries.

 

Morals and correctness are also somewhat separate in cases like the above. Plagues, wars and medical stuff used to wipe out huge amounts of the population keeping it a little bit in control. Now people are living longer, dyeing less and helping everywhere else to do the same. Morally right but possibly a bit stupid thanks to overpopulation, food and water shortages, conflict over land and resources increasing. So in the end it may end up being much more destructive and lethal than not doing the right thing to start with.

 

Morals and logic are different and by relying on morals alone you put yourself in danger of doing more damage.

 

It is a mess now in various wars, WW2 civilians were killed left, right and centre. Now a group of ten innocents mistakenly done in by a cruse missile from hundreds of kilometres away is a massive tragedy. There is a definite disconnect between morals and the 'right' thing, it all depends on your situation.

[tmcd35]

A controversial view about killing in wars is that it is good for society.

 

An interesting thought, war what's it good for? Absolutely Noth... Actually:

 

Population control - suddenly enough land and food to go around without all those extra mouths to feed

Unemployment rate - Someones gotta do the work of those who've been killed

New technology (computers, internet, satellites, mobile phones, etc)

Having an external foe to focus your efforts on reduces internal problems

 

I'm sure there's more.

 

Maybe the answer to many of our current political problems is to invade Poland?

[LosOjos]

I can see his point though - if those moderate religious people didn't exist, then there couldn't be any extremists doing stupid things.

 

How far do you take it though? If there weren't any humans, there'd be no war...

 

Right. So you were indulging in 'inflamatory' rhetoric and there is no evidence for your claim. Fair enough.

 

That might be. But if you believe something, it does change the way you act. If it didn't, how do can anyone tell that you actually believe it? I was under the impression (for instance) that Christians were obliged to take the word of Jesus out into the world and save other peoples souls. It is a sin for them not to. So how exactly does that work with "not shoving it down other peoples throat"?

 

Look, I'm not claiming to have all the answers, I'm having a discussion. I won't be drawn in to your "define every single point you make to the letter", because I don't have to. I'm not looking for followers.

[localzuk]

Maybe the answer to many of our current political problems is to invade Poland?

 

Nah, there's another war storming its way towards us, I can feel it. Japan and China are at each other's throats over some rocks. The Middle East is basically constantly at war, and Syria is heading towards being a catalyst to a more serious conflict including Russia and the USA/Europe, Iran and Israel are on a knife's edge.

 

I can seriously see another world war in my lifetime. Horrible thought.

 

How far do you take it though? If there weren't any humans, there'd be no war...

 

See above. Won't be an issue in a few decades time...