Religion Of Peace?

[djAdvocate]

i can't imagine anyone engaging this argument better than this guy:



comments?

[Tennesseer]

No other comment than he is right on with his view.  Thanks for posting this.

[Virgil Showlion]

It's a long and pointless debate on the definition of "extremist". I only made it as far as 4:30.

The only data of relevance are what number (and what percentage) of self-described Muslims endorse the questionable doctrines (FGM, slaughter of infidels, harsh treatment of women, etc.), what number/percentage engage in these practices, and whether there's a defensible scriptural basis (per Islamic canon) for the doctrines being endorsed/practiced.

Compare these numbers to those of other religious and non-religious groups and the results plainly tell you whether or not Islam is "the religion of peace" with respect to a given set of "peaceful" practices.

I certainly don't condemn or dislike Muslims. I don't endorse all points of Islamic doctrine, but my beliefs would still align more closely with those of a typical Muslim than a typical atheist. Nor would I have any trouble believing that only a small percentage of Muslims endorse ISIS-type doctrines. That kind of zeal requires religious conviction, which is a rare commodity no matter where you look.

But of course relevant numbers and data are well beyond the productive capabilities of the US MSM, hence talking heads quibbling over the definition of "extremism" it is. I can't imagine why CNN is still losing market share.

[mmhmm]

He says it like it is and points out the total failure inherent in painting with too broad a brush. I just hope people really listen and hear what he's saying.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 2, 2014 17:47:23 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It's a long and pointless debate on the definition of "extremist". I only made it as far as 4:30.

The only data of relevance are what number (and what percentage) of self-described Muslims endorse the questionable doctrines (FGM, slaughter of infidels, harsh treatment of women, etc.), what number/percentage engage in these practices, and whether there's a defensible scriptural basis (per Islamic canon) for the doctrines being endorsed/practiced.

Compare these numbers to those of other religious and non-religious groups and the results plainly tell you whether or not Islam is "the religion of peace" with respect to a given set of "peaceful" practices.

I certainly don't condemn or dislike Muslims. I don't endorse all points of Islamic doctrine, but my beliefs would still align more closely with those of a typical Muslim than a typical atheist. Nor would I have any trouble believing that only a small percentage of Muslims endorse ISIS-type doctrines. That kind of zeal requires religious conviction, which is a rare commodity no matter where you look.

But of course relevant numbers and data are well beyond the productive capabilities of the US MSM, hence talking heads quibbling over the definition of "extremism" it is. I can't imagine why CNN is still losing market share.

i didn't see it that way at all. 

what he is saying is that not all of Islam is extreme.  our way of framing this debate since 911 has been to ignore that fact.  and you don't need to just accept that from me- just look at the exchanges on this board.  SERIOUSLY. 

i really think you missed the point on FGM, as well.  if you look at where it takes place, it is in Equatorial Africa.  the largest density of muslims in the world is in the middle east and North Africa.  of those 31 countries, only 1/4 of them have any instances of FGM, including NONE of the 5 most densely Muslim nations.  so, as this guy CORRECTLY states, this is a regional problem NOT a muslim one.

i might add one final note- CNN, which is routinely argued as being the most "liberal" of the MSM outlets, is on the CONSERVATIVE side of this argument, Virgil.

[EVT1]

He's dead on. After Maher made his points about it- it was funny that right wing websites started posting his shtick about it. 

But he can't stand religion at all- and to a point I can agree with his stance that religion is causing a lot of the problems on this planet.

I can't really see much difference in religion or beer- it keeps people in line most of the time until they have a little too much of it. It allows people to accept their lot in life so the elite can enjoy theirs without any trouble. 

When I saw the topic though I assumed it was a hit piece on Islam- because the 'religion of peace' is a sarcastic refrain and favorite topic on the right.  You have no idea how many scholars of the Koran there are on AM radio   I wonder if ISIS has hate radio yet- they should look into it.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 2, 2014 20:07:59 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

He's dead on. After Maher made his points about it- it was funny that right wing websites started posting his shtick about it. 

But he can't stand religion at all- and to a point I can agree with his stance that religion is causing a lot of the problems on this planet.

I can't really see much difference in religion or beer- it keeps people in line most of the time until they have a little too much of it. It allows people to accept their lot in life so the elite can enjoy theirs without any trouble. 

When I saw the topic though I assumed it was a hit piece on Islam- because the 'religion of peace' is a sarcastic refrain and favorite topic on the right.  You have no idea how many scholars of the Koran there are on AM radio   I wonder if ISIS has hate radio yet- they should look into it.

the title was intended to get people to open the thread. 

[Tennesseer]

Oct 2, 2014 20:25:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 2, 2014 20:07:59 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

He's dead on. After Maher made his points about it- it was funny that right wing websites started posting his shtick about it. 

But he can't stand religion at all- and to a point I can agree with his stance that religion is causing a lot of the problems on this planet.

I can't really see much difference in religion or beer- it keeps people in line most of the time until they have a little too much of it. It allows people to accept their lot in life so the elite can enjoy theirs without any trouble. 

When I saw the topic though I assumed it was a hit piece on Islam- because the 'religion of peace' is a sarcastic refrain and favorite topic on the right.  You have no idea how many scholars of the Koran there are on AM radio   I wonder if ISIS has hate radio yet- they should look into it.

the title was intended to get people to open the thread. 

Like the 'come hither' aroma of a bakery down the street.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 2, 2014 19:43:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 2, 2014 17:47:23 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It's a long and pointless debate on the definition of "extremist". I only made it as far as 4:30.

The only data of relevance are what number (and what percentage) of self-described Muslims endorse the questionable doctrines (FGM, slaughter of infidels, harsh treatment of women, etc.), what number/percentage engage in these practices, and whether there's a defensible scriptural basis (per Islamic canon) for the doctrines being endorsed/practiced.

Compare these numbers to those of other religious and non-religious groups and the results plainly tell you whether or not Islam is "the religion of peace" with respect to a given set of "peaceful" practices.

I certainly don't condemn or dislike Muslims. I don't endorse all points of Islamic doctrine, but my beliefs would still align more closely with those of a typical Muslim than a typical atheist. Nor would I have any trouble believing that only a small percentage of Muslims endorse ISIS-type doctrines. That kind of zeal requires religious conviction, which is a rare commodity no matter where you look.

But of course relevant numbers and data are well beyond the productive capabilities of the US MSM, hence talking heads quibbling over the definition of "extremism" it is. I can't imagine why CNN is still losing market share.

i didn't see it that way at all. 

what he is saying is that not all of Islam is extreme.  our way of framing this debate since 911 has been to ignore that fact.  and you don't need to just accept that from me- just look at the exchanges on this board.  SERIOUSLY. 

i really think you missed the point on FGM, as well.  if you look at where it takes place, it is in Equatorial Africa.  the largest density of muslims in the world is in the middle east and North Africa.  of those 31 countries, only 1/4 of them have any instances of FGM, including NONE of the 5 most densely Muslim nations.  so, as this guy CORRECTLY states, this is a regional problem NOT a muslim one.

i might add one final note- CNN, which is routinely argued as being the most "liberal" of the MSM outlets, is on the CONSERVATIVE side of this argument, Virgil.

I didn't mind his exposition on FGM ≠ Islam, since he (sort of) presented some numbers to justify his position in that case. He at least made some qualitative statements about the fact that the problem is regional rather than religious.

Having said this, I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard FGM criticized as being a "Muslim problem". Maybe US news agencies do it all the time. I don't know. The news sources I frequent clearly identify it as an African problem, and I'd wager that a hefty chunk of US conservatives don't even know what FGM is, let alone ascribe it to Islam. It seems like a bit of a strawman argument.

The issues that concern most people are violence, freedom of religion, and the status of women in Islamic societies. It would be really nice if CNN (or any news agency) would do the legwork of tallying up the numbers/percentages of people (Islamic and not) that endorse/practice certain contested doctrines and present them sans commentary. How do numbers/percentages of terrorists work out? What do rape and murder statistics look like across Islamic versus non-Islamic nations? What percentage of Muslims believe that a woman should be beaten for disobedience? How does this compare to the percentage of non-Muslims who believe this? Is there a doctrinal basis for their beliefs?

Instead of these lightweight talking head shows with Dr. von Opinion debating news anchors and clips of Bill Maher, why not produce an hour-long documentary "Islam: The Good and the Bad", which presents how the Islamic world stacks up to the non-Islamic world with respect to some key issues? Let viewers come to their own conclusions about how peaceful or violent Islam is, and how representative or not ISIS is of broader Islam. I would watch such a documentary. I bet a good many other people would watch it too, if only to take a break from these facile talking head montages.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 3, 2014 15:17:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 2, 2014 19:43:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i didn't see it that way at all. 

what he is saying is that not all of Islam is extreme.  our way of framing this debate since 911 has been to ignore that fact.  and you don't need to just accept that from me- just look at the exchanges on this board.  SERIOUSLY. 

i really think you missed the point on FGM, as well.  if you look at where it takes place, it is in Equatorial Africa.  the largest density of muslims in the world is in the middle east and North Africa.  of those 31 countries, only 1/4 of them have any instances of FGM, including NONE of the 5 most densely Muslim nations.  so, as this guy CORRECTLY states, this is a regional problem NOT a muslim one.

i might add one final note- CNN, which is routinely argued as being the most "liberal" of the MSM outlets, is on the CONSERVATIVE side of this argument, Virgil.

I didn't mind his exposition on FGM ≠ Islam, since he (sort of) presented some numbers to justify his position in that case. He at least made some qualitative statements about the fact that the problem is regional rather than religious.

Having said this, I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard FGM criticized as being a "Muslim problem". Maybe US news agencies do it all the time. I don't know. The news sources I frequent clearly identify it as an African problem, and I'd wager that a hefty chunk of US conservatives don't even know what FGM is, let alone ascribe it to Islam. It seems like a bit of a strawman argument.

The issues that concern most people are violence, freedom of religion, and the status of women in Islamic societies. It would be really nice if CNN (or any news agency) would do the legwork of tallying up the numbers/percentages of people (Islamic and not) that endorse/practice certain contested doctrines and present them sans commentary. How do numbers/percentages of terrorists work out? What do rape and murder statistics look like across Islamic versus non-Islamic nations? What percentage of Muslims believe that a woman should be beaten for disobedience? How does this compare to the percentage of non-Muslims who believe this? Is there a doctrinal basis for their beliefs?

Instead of these lightweight talking head shows with Dr. von Opinion debating news anchors and clips of Bill Maher, why not produce an hour-long documentary "Islam: The Good and the Bad", which presents how the Islamic world stacks up to the non-Islamic world with respect to some key issues? Let viewers come to their own conclusions about how peaceful or violent Islam is, and how representative or not ISIS is of broader Islam. I would watch such a documentary. I bet a good many other people would watch it too, if only to take a break from these facile talking head montages.

at least Dr. Von Opinion is arguing AGAINST making sweeping generalizations.  that argument is generally going to win favor for me, but only because i find simplistic arguments not only generally inaccurate (by definition), but often outrageous lies.

the fact remains that the anchors did, repeatedly say "Islamic Countries" as if such a term said anything about them.  it really doesn't.  Dr. Von Opinion was 100% right on that score.  it makes no more sense than saying "Catholic Countries".  the only difference is, of course, that we would never use the latter phrase, which is illustrative, imo.

he is also right in that we tend to group terrorism as a homogenous phenomena.  nothing could be further from the truth.  terrorism is utterly heterogeneous to a spectacular degree.  i am so sick and tired about FOX and other stations (CNN, yes, you) droning on and on about this problem as if it were ONE THING.  it isn't.  the failure to identify it for what it is means that we will be forever manipulated by people who convince us that it is something it is not.

[Virgil Showlion]

it makes no more sense than saying "Catholic Countries"

How does saying "Catholic Countries" not make sense?

If a country or nation (not necessarily a country) is 80% or more Catholic, it makes perfect sense to call it a Catholic country/nation. The only reason you don't often hear of a "Catholic country" is because Christian countries aren't that homogenous. Even Brazil, a very Catholic country, is only ~65% Catholic. By contrast, many Islamic countries exist that are well in excess of > 80% Sunni Islamist, and identify themselves as Sunni Muslims (ahl as-sunnah wa l-jamāʻah).

If your point is that even Sunni Islam is broken down into further denominations with disparate beliefs in the same way as Christianity, I'm well aware of that fact. However, we address it by i) stipulating which denomination(s) we're talking about when presenting facts, ii) deeming an "X nation", where X is a denomination of Islam, to be a nation where the vast majority (e.g. > 4/5) of the nation practices X. Many nation states and even countries still qualify, even at the granularity of denominations.

As for terrorism being an inhomogenous phenomenon:

1. Most people don't care, which isn't necessarily wrong. Similarly, if American bombs rain from the sky in the ME, the people there wouldn't distinguish between Republicans and Democrats even if Republicans were 100% for the bombing and Democrats were 100% against it. You're all Americans. You're one nation with one fate. At some (reasonably coarse) level of granularity, it does become prudent to say "Americans are bombing us" or "Greek orthodox Christians displaced us".
   
   
2. A documentary with numbers would quantify the relationships between terrorism, etc. and the various sects of Islam. A similar exercise for Christianity might be to identify the N major sects/churches where > 5% of the church held belief X. The documentary would then show these figures.

We agree that the media's oversimplification of the issue is a problem, but we have different ideas about how to deal with it. I'm saying that we should embrace the complexity and break it down to a reasonable level of granularity where nations (countries, sects, denominations, regions, etc.) are adequately homogenous, and present the raw data. You and von Opinion seem to be choking on the problem (of inhomogeneity) and perfectly happy to not supply any kind of solution except for "hug a Muslim and go back to bed". If that's the only thing you have to offer in place of blind generalization, good luck with convincing people not to generalize.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 3, 2014 23:17:36 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

it makes no more sense than saying "Catholic Countries"

How does saying "Catholic Countries" not make sense?

If a country or nation (not necessarily a country) is 80% or more Catholic, it makes perfect sense to call it a Catholic country/nation. The only reason you don't often hear of a "Catholic country" is because Christian countries aren't that homogenous. Even Brazil, a very Catholic country, is only ~65% Catholic. By contrast, many Islamic countries exist that are well in excess of > 80% Sunni Islamist, and identify themselves as Sunni Muslims (ahl as-sunnah wa l-jamāʻah).

If your point is that even Sunni Islam is broken down into further denominations with disparate beliefs in the same way as Christianity, I'm well aware of that fact. However, we address it by i) stipulating which denomination(s) we're talking about when presenting facts, ii) deeming an "X nation", where X is a denomination of Islam, to be a nation where the vast majority (e.g. > 4/5) of the nation practices X. Many nation states and even countries still qualify, even at the granularity of denominations.

As for terrorism being an inhomogenous phenomenon:

1. Most people don't care, which isn't necessarily wrong. Similarly, if American bombs rain from the sky in the ME, the people there wouldn't distinguish between Republicans and Democrats even if Republicans were 100% for the bombing and Democrats were 100% against it. You're all Americans. You're one nation with one fate. At some (reasonably coarse) level of granularity, it does become prudent to say "Americans are bombing us" or "Greek orthodox Christians displaced us".
   
   
2. A documentary with numbers would quantify the relationships between terrorism, etc. and the various sects of Islam. A similar exercise for Christianity might be to identify the N major sects/churches where > 5% of the church held belief X. The documentary would then show these figures.

We agree that the media's oversimplification of the issue is a problem, but we have different ideas about how to deal with it. I'm saying that we should embrace the complexity and break it down to a reasonable level of granularity where nations (countries, sects, denominations, regions, etc.) are adequately homogenous, and present the raw data. You and von Opinion seem to be choking on the problem (of inhomogeneity) and perfectly happy to not supply any kind of solution except for "hug a Muslim and go back to bed". If that's the only thing you have to offer in place of blind generalization, good luck with convincing people not to generalize.

Virgil- you are right- i should have said "Christian Nation" in the sense that we say "Islamic Nation".  and i suppose, one might be TACITLY IMPLYING that all other nations are Christian by not saying it, or by specifying "Muslim Nation" for those that follow Islam.  But again, we don't think of Indonesia as an Islamic Nation, or a Muslim nation, do we?  and we don't do that for Bangladesh, either- even though it is.  nor do we call out Mexico for being "Christian".  but somehow, it seems to come very easy to dismiss this nation or that (or worse, demonize them) for being "Muslim".  i would posit it is to create OTHERNESS- but it is also doesn't say anything about those nations at all.  so, what is the phrase actually getting @?

to your second point, NOT CARING is the problem imo.  people who don't care about stuff that affects them are easily manipulated.  we SHOULD care.  we are, after all, purportedly AT WAR with terrorists.  we should make distinctions between types of terrorism that are at war with US, and those that are not, if we are going to declare a war at all (i think we should not, personally). 

as far as your solution, i actually agree with that.  we should have an informed debate about it, and make RATIONAL decisions.  the problem is, that we don't EVER have an informed debate, here in the US.  it is infuriating.  but i will keep trying. 

[Deleted]

Oct 4, 2014 15:16:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

we should have an informed debate about it, and make RATIONAL decisions. the problem is, that we don't EVER have an informed debate, here in the US. it is infuriating. but i will keep trying.

The only problem with that idea is that it's impossible to have a rational debate when multiple religions are involved... because EVERYONE is wrong. (The Christians think everyone else is wrong, the Jews think everyone else is wrong, the Muslims think everyone else is wrong, et cetera).

[djAdvocate]

Oct 4, 2014 17:17:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 4, 2014 15:16:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

we should have an informed debate about it, and make RATIONAL decisions. the problem is, that we don't EVER have an informed debate, here in the US. it is infuriating. but i will keep trying.

The only problem with that idea is that it's impossible to have a rational debate when multiple religions are involved... because EVERYONE is wrong. (The Christians think everyone else is wrong, the Jews think everyone else is wrong, the Muslims think everyone else is wrong, et cetera).

well, we can debate religion rationally  .  but i would agree.  that is totally different than debating policy rationally, if you are coming from a religious perspective, or using religion as the basis for your argument.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 4, 2014 17:59:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 4, 2014 17:17:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

The only problem with that idea is that it's impossible to have a rational debate when multiple religions are involved... because EVERYONE is wrong. (The Christians think everyone else is wrong, the Jews think everyone else is wrong, the Muslims think everyone else is wrong, et cetera).

well, we can debate religion rationally  .  but i would agree.  that is totally different than debating policy rationally, if you are coming from a religious perspective, or using religion as the basis for your argument.

Everything I've argued in this thread thus far has been consistent with--and informed by--my religion.

If you feel I don't view Islam rationally, you've been awfully crafty thus far to engage me as though I did.

Oct 4, 2014 17:17:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

The only problem with that idea is that it's impossible to have a rational debate when multiple religions are involved... because EVERYONE is wrong. (The Christians think everyone else is wrong, the Jews think everyone else is wrong, the Muslims think everyone else is wrong, et cetera).

Why limit this to just religious people?

You think Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all wrong too. In fact, given Christian, Jewish, and Muslim doctrines converge on many points that areligious people reject, it's probably fair to say you think they're wrong more than they think of each other as wrong. How that precludes rational debate about a topic, I don't know.

It seems to me that everybody thinking everybody else is wrong is the world's rational acknowledgement that our views differ and we can't all possibly be right. If we void this assumption so that multiple mutually incompatible beliefs can all be "right", we've waded into the territory of moral relativism, which is an irrational and totally indefensible philosophy.

[billisonboard]

Oct 5, 2014 10:44:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... an irrational and totally indefensible philosophy.

But only if you have bought into the questionable human construct of rationality.

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2014 10:44:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 4, 2014 17:59:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

well, we can debate religion rationally  .  but i would agree.  that is totally different than debating policy rationally, if you are coming from a religious perspective, or using religion as the basis for your argument.

Everything I've argued in this thread thus far has been consistent with--and informed by--my religion.

If you feel I don't view Islam rationally, you've been awfully crafty thus far to engage me as though I did.

Oct 4, 2014 17:17:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

The only problem with that idea is that it's impossible to have a rational debate when multiple religions are involved... because EVERYONE is wrong. (The Christians think everyone else is wrong, the Jews think everyone else is wrong, the Muslims think everyone else is wrong, et cetera).

Why limit this to just religious people?

You think Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all wrong too. In fact, given Christian, Jewish, and Muslim doctrines converge on many points that areligious people reject, it's probably fair to say you think they're wrong more than they think of each other as wrong. How that precludes rational debate about a topic, I don't know.

It seems to me that everybody thinking everybody else is wrong is the world's rational acknowledgement that our views differ and we can't all possibly be right. If we void this assumption so that multiple mutually incompatible beliefs can all be "right", we've waded into the territory of moral relativism, which is an irrational and totally indefensible philosophy.

I wasn't excluding Agnostics or Atheists ("belief in not" {Atheism} is a Religion {A particular system of faith and worship}, in this case a system of non-faith and non-worship... as well as "I don't have enough information to form an opinion" {Agnosticism} is). I just stopped listing them by name at "the big 3", the rest (including Agnostics, like myself) were in the "et cetera" part.

[Virgil Showlion]

Gotcha.

"Rational discussion" on religion proceeds when parties agree on the answers to some fundamental questions. This is actually quite common, it just doesn't happen in general Internet chat rooms. Sites like Stack Exchange, where different forums and subforums are established on sets of fundamentals, are replete with profitable religious and philosophical debates.

If a discussion between Muslims and non-Muslims starts at a question as fundamental as "Was Mohammad a holy prophet of God?", it obviously won't proceed far on a rational basis since we've shoehorned the discussion into a single irreconcilable point of contention. Even so, the set of questions whose answers don't depend on the answer to this question is infinite. I can easily engage a Muslim in a debate: "Your scriptures say X here, here, and here, and yet you practice Y in contravention of X." leading to a rational discussion on the nature of X versus Y, despite the fact that I reject the authority of much Islamic scripture.

Most professing Muslims, like most professing Christians, are ignorant of scripture and highly selective in which parts of scripture they believe/practice. I hold a fundamentalist view in that I believe an individual's religion should be 100% based on a consistent, authoritative, canonical body of scripture, in precisely the same way that mathematics posits a canonical set of truths (e.g. 1 + 1 = 2) that can, given suitable study, be built into a vastly more complex but fully self-consistent theory. Issues of interpretation and putative contradiction are then argued and resolved on the basis of self-consistency within the theory.

Religious fundamentalism to this extreme is exceptionally rare. Among the (already small) subset of religious people who consider scripture the basis for their religion (and who have more than a perfunctory knowledge of what their scriptures do and don't say), most either i) prefer to select their beliefs at the granularity of individual doctrines, ii) interpret scriptures in a preferred way, ignoring matters like consistency and defensibility, or iii) do care somewhat about doctrinal consistency, but not enough to actually conduct research that establishes it. Debates in this sphere are far less likely to avail anything useful, since scripture no longer serves as an anchor. For example, if a self-described Christian rejects Biblical teachings on greed by claiming its benefits (e.g. ambition) outweigh its pitfalls in some or all cases, I can't rigorously disprove this claim. I can only argue on an empirical basis, which constitutes > 99.99% of religious discussion on the Internetz. In that regard, I agree with you that much online religious discussion isn't "rational". Or at least no more and no less rational than a debate about whether Republicans are truly waging a "war on women" or Pres. Obama is the "worst US president ever".

I'm fuzzy on how Muslims' beliefs break down in terms of jihad, shariah, etc. worldwide. I know what their scriptures say, but as I commented above, scripture plays a minor role in the vast majority of religious practice. Most religious practices are based on tradition, culture, and personal preference, even in the Islamic world. Some branches of Islam, such as Sufi Islam, are heavily syncretized with polytheistic religions like Hinduism (I have no idea how they accomplished this, but evidently they did). Islam in eastern Pakistan and India is supposedly a massive panoply of religions, all of which are technically called "Islam".

[Opti]

Oct 2, 2014 15:53:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i can't imagine anyone engaging this argument better than this guy:



comments?

Very well said. I watched it all even though at the 7 minute mark I really

did not want o hear N* again.

The thing I find challenging, is he had to be on and totally clear, 100%,

because both anchors/news people weren't quite getting how biased they

were although in the end at least the black guy backed off, and conceded he

had to ask certain Qs and he did answer them.

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2014 21:43:04 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

mathematics posits a canonical set of truths (e.g. 1 + 1 = 2)

Given your coding ability I feel silly pointing out that 1 + 1 = 10 also.

[EVT1]

Oct 5, 2014 19:35:03 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 5, 2014 10:44:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I wasn't excluding Agnostics or Atheists ("belief in not" {Atheism} is a Religion {A particular system of faith and worship}, in this case a system of non-faith and non-worship... as well as "I don't have enough information to form an opinion" {Agnosticism} is). I just stopped listing them by name at "the big 3", the rest (including Agnostics, like myself) were in the "et cetera" part.

Atheism is not a religion.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 6, 2014 10:14:49 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Oct 5, 2014 19:35:03 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I wasn't excluding Agnostics or Atheists ("belief in not" {Atheism} is a Religion {A particular system of faith and worship}, in this case a system of non-faith and non-worship... as well as "I don't have enough information to form an opinion" {Agnosticism} is). I just stopped listing them by name at "the big 3", the rest (including Agnostics, like myself) were in the "et cetera" part.

Atheism is not a religion.

Semantics.

Show me a word for "system of beliefs dictating one's views on existential issues" and I'll use it. Until then, "religion" fits the bill better than any other word and so "religion" it is.

[EVT1]

Oct 6, 2014 10:34:04 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 6, 2014 10:14:49 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Atheism is not a religion.

Semantics.

Show me a word for "system of beliefs dictating one's views on existential issues" and I'll use it. Until then, "religion" fits the bill better than any other word and so "religion" it is.

How does it fit?  Religions have certain characteristics- a diety (or several), sacred texts, rituals, places, a history, require faith, involve worship, have tax free status  among others.

Atheism has none of that.  If you want to call an attitude of- 'do whatever you want I am going to sit on the couch, drink beer and watch football' anything call it a philosophy.  That is a much better term.

Why are we here?  Because we're here.  Roll the Bones.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 6, 2014 12:10:59 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Oct 6, 2014 10:34:04 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Semantics.

Show me a word for "system of beliefs dictating one's views on existential issues" and I'll use it. Until then, "religion" fits the bill better than any other word and so "religion" it is.

How does it fit?  Religions have certain characteristics- a diety (or several), sacred texts, rituals, places, a history, require faith, involve worship, have tax free status  among others.

Atheism has none of that.  If you want to call an attitude of- 'do whatever you want I am going to sit on the couch, drink beer and watch football' anything call it a philosophy.  That is a much better term.

Why are we here?  Because we're here.  Roll the Bones.

Sure there are differences. But consider the similarities:

One can identify a core set of atheistic doctrines and principles, atheistic congregations, leaders, symbols, and texts. Atheism indeed requires faith. For example, faith in the completeness of scientific inquiry, faith in human knowledge, and faith in human beings who present [what they claim to be] rational conclusions.

There are numerous "cults of personality" surrounding outspoken atheists (although admittedly these don't begin to approach the size of religious cults), as well as well-funded organizations dedicated to the suppression and destruction of religion, some of which IIRC enjoy tax-free status. Many atheists devotedly spend time proselytizing, criticizing, participating in satirical pseudo-religious ceremonies, and engaging in legal activism, all of which requires a good bit of effort.

Atheists aren't a totally homogenous group by any stretch of the imagination, but as we've clearly established in this thread, neither are Muslims, Christians, or adherents to any other religion.

The "do whatever you want; I'm going to swill beer on the couch" variety of atheist is a practitioner of "fatalistic atheism" or "null atheism". The lack of theistic thought stems from a complete lack of interest in existential philosophy. It's basically the equivalent of a lapsed Christian. Since I don't consider "lapsed Christianity" to be a religion, I agree with you that null atheism isn't one either.

[EVT1]

Funny you should say that as that's about correct- I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, Sunday school, the whole 9 yards.  One day I woke, took a good look around at the world and thought- this is a load of bullshit.  I'm lapsed all right.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 6, 2014 14:39:55 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Funny you should say that as that's about correct- I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, Sunday school, the whole 9 yards.  One day I woke, took a good look around at the world and thought- this is a load of bullshit.  I'm lapsed all right.

I was also raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, Sunday school, the whole 9 yards. I eventually came to question why Catholic doctrines bore scant resemblance to the Christianity practiced by Christ, but I was moved in a different direction.

At any rate, reminiscing over our religious backgrounds is a rather large red flag that we're off-topic. Best stick to Islam, otherwise we'll end up singing Kumbaya around the campfire.

[Deleted]

Oct 6, 2014 10:14:49 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Oct 5, 2014 19:35:03 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I wasn't excluding Agnostics or Atheists ("belief in not" {Atheism} is a Religion {A particular system of faith and worship}, in this case a system of non-faith and non-worship... as well as "I don't have enough information to form an opinion" {Agnosticism} is). I just stopped listing them by name at "the big 3", the rest (including Agnostics, like myself) were in the "et cetera" part.

Atheism is not a religion.

Atheism is not an ORGANIZED religion... but since it is a "system of faith and worship" (in the case of Atheism, the system is that they DON'T have faith, and they DON'T worship), it still qualifies as a Religion.

[EVT1]

Oct 6, 2014 18:56:15 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 6, 2014 10:14:49 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Atheism is not a religion.

Atheism is not an ORGANIZED religion... but since it is a "system of faith and worship" (in the case of Atheism, the system is that they DON'T have faith, and they DON'T worship), it still qualifies as a Religion.

Crapola.  Atheism requires no beliefs or faith- and sure as shit no worship of anything.

There is one hell of a difference between what I call a religion, and what I call a personal philosophy of what life is or isn't.

All religion is as far as I can tell is some crap made up by humans to explain what they cannot explain, to answer questions for which there are no answers, and more recently to keep people in line and make money. 

But maybe you have a point- as I am mainly referring to organized religion- as it is fair to say everyone has their own personal religion- but I do not like that term.  And really- not worshiping is worship? WTF does that mean?

And on that note 'faith' is the belief in something that cannot be proven- something atheists do not have- unless of course you want to argue there is no proof that there isn't a God   In that case I refer you to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Deleted]

Oct 6, 2014 21:16:23 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Oct 6, 2014 18:56:15 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Atheism is not an ORGANIZED religion... but since it is a "system of faith and worship" (in the case of Atheism, the system is that they DON'T have faith, and they DON'T worship), it still qualifies as a Religion.

Crapola.  Atheism requires no beliefs or faith- and sure as shit no worship of anything.

There is one hell of a difference between what I call a religion, and what I call a personal philosophy of what life is or isn't.

All religion is as far as I can tell is some crap made up by humans to explain what they cannot explain, to answer questions for which there are no answers, and more recently to keep people in line and make money. 

But maybe you have a point- as I am mainly referring to organized religion- as it is fair to say everyone has their own personal religion- but I do not like that term.  And really- not worshiping is worship? WTF does that mean?

And on that note 'faith' is the belief in something that cannot be proven- something atheists do not have- unless of course you want to argue there is no proof that there isn't a God   In that case I refer you to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Atheism actually does require faith. Faith that there is NO God (something even harder to prove that proving that there is one... because you can't prove a negative)

With the exception of Atheism and Agnosticism... you are correct in your statement of: "to explain what they cannot explain, to answer questions for which there are no answers, and more recently to keep people in line and make money."

Not worshiping is the "tails side" to the worshiping "heads side" of the religion coin.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

What about False Religions - I'm talking about the Charlatans or "Preachers" you either see at Ministry Revivals or on late-nite TV - magically 'curing the crippled' - or bilking their believers out of all their money - by promising "Miracles" or selling vials of Holy Water or promised money "if you believe" - and all the fake testimonies from people who claim to have had money fall from heaven into their bank accounts?

They're selling their 'carnival huckster' wares on TV to gullible people with false promises, and lining their own pockets with the money.

I'm not going to point out which faith in the Christian religion is most notorious for this, but I'm sure you can figure it out.