Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[M3J]

Newsflash - a religion isn't a religion without it's adherents. The concept of a creator and it's relation to science, versus science and dogma are two different conversations.

A religion is a religion with or without its adherents. I can't directly blame religion when its followers bastardize it for their own needs and wants. I mean, many religious people do think God created the world, and then evolution took its course, or whatnot. Christianity for example could support science without a second though, but is the religion to blame if its followers gloss over that part and claim science is heretic and the work of the Devil?

 

[shionoro]

A religion is a religion with or without its adherents. I can't directly blame religion when its followers bastardize it for their own needs and wants. I mean, many religious people do think God created the world, and then evolution took its course, or whatnot. Christianity for example could support science without a second though, but is the religion to blame if its followers gloss over that part and claim science is heretic and the work of the Devil?

Yes. Although i dont use the word blame for it, but it is a cause of it.
Religion and society interact with each other.
A religion is always influencing views of their adherents if they have grown up with it.
A religion is also shaped by it.
For example, the quran does not say a woman has to wear a veil, but noone would say that the veil is not part of islam now, because islam is always also how he is understood, not only what the basic text days.

In fact, that is the whole reason why (at least sunni) islam puts so much emphasis on mohammeds behaviour: It is important how the islam should be interpeted because the islam is more than just what is written in the quran.

The same goes for christianity: Christianity is more than just the biblical text.

And if a religion, EVEN IF THE TEXT IT IS BASED ON DOES NOT SAY IT is influencing people to act a certain way it has to be seen as one cause for it.

As a rule of thumb: Always think about the individuum when you talk about an individuum, and never do it if you talk about a thing or any society issues.

Naturally an individual has to face personal blame for its actions, it is not like religion is a person.

But if the understanding (even if wrong understanding) of a religion becomes common and widespread, it becomes part of the religion or at least a part of a fraction of it.

If we go by the basic text, then a christian woman may not pray with her hea dnot covered:

But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 1 Corinthians 11:5-6

But noone would say the veil is part of christianity, because christianity did evolve into another direction.
Islam also has a lot of different directions, some even decided by the region where it is lived (most notably of course the shia sunni difference).

The culture shaped by the religion is usually not seperateable from the religion, thus the religion cannot be understood or judged by only its content.

The same goes for any ideology really. You cannot judge communism only by what sounds good in the books, you have to see the effect and after you have studied it in many single cases, then you can judge whether its implementation is wortwhile or if it needs to be changed.
Most importantly, an ideology never can be studied separately from the society it is unleashed upon.

 

[xi0]

A religion is a religion with or without its adherents.

Uh, no...? The relationship between a religion and it's followers is completely causal. Religions don't exist if there's no one to follow it and followers can't exist if there's no religion to follow.

I can't directly blame religion when its followers bastardize it for their own needs and wants.

Why not? Who's to decide whether people are bastardizing a religion or not? The Pentateuch of the Bible has been repeatedly edited for more than 2 millennia, never mind the New Testament. Never mind the religious writings that leaders decided to exclude from the "accepted" books.

I mean, many religious people do think God created the world, and then evolution took its course, or whatnot. Christianity for example could support science without a second though, but is the religion to blame if its followers gloss over that part and claim science is heretic and the work of the Devil?

I mean, yeah, it kinda is, because religion is molded by those in power. The religiously devout are told what to believe in and who to pray to...how exact does that not run at odds with free thought? Scientific pursuits within religious communities were tolerated because they were beneficial to them and their vision of society as a whole, the moment they weren't...forget it.

 

[Su Tunc]

My first time seeing this thread and I was like "Oh gosh"

Since it's an international forum, people tend to support their values that they were born with. I
When you feel that somebody else, a foreigner criticize it, you feel offended. But it's okay if you criticize these values yourself. So, -I am talking about the late discussions- the problem is there.

As a non-believer Turkish woman, I'd say that Ottoman Empire used "Jihad" for it's benefits to get growing. Islam was it's push up power and the reasons why Ottoman Empire got that strong and vanished in the end.

The Middle East is an extremely ignorant place. It is funny to imagine that Iraqians were Sumerians before. I am not even mentioning Egyptians. The main reason why these cultures were demolished was the wars, and the second one is, Bedevis (Arabs from desert) who got power after Islam and conquered all over the places.

Islam is not against science but the ignorance is. Nothing comes good something that was born in ignorance.

I usually do not prefer to discuss about religion. Especially with religious people. Neither a Muslim nor a Christian. It just bugs me to see when ISIS crushes down all these antique sculptures. It is painful. Such pain!

I believe in future. So, "Ottomans were supporting science, we had lots of guys who invented bla bla" doesn't work for me. Do generally Muslim countries now stakeholders of huge technology labs, researches, brands? No. They hire almost retired footballers and watch dramas. There are many Turks in NASA, CERN etc. but they are individuals. We do not produce future.

Even our Ministry of Economy said "Turkey is not a country for inventions, we are a nation of workers"

I am a proud person. I can not accept such thing like that about my nation. It's a shame for me.

On the other hand, we can not just blame Islam on that. It's the culture and geography. Iran has a great culture and they do keep their existence in the modern world -in a non-modern way but anyways-

I am a sci-fi writer and I write to escape from the reality. The reality is sucks. At least mine. Maybe yours is ok

 

[xi0]

Sort of branching off of a conversation @M3J and myself were having in the US Election thread, I was curious what his and anyone else's take on the topic of this video -


Sort of an analysis of what we know about most of the recent attackers, and examining how their radicalization occurred, why it may have happened, and why religious extremism exists in general. I found it pretty thought provoking anyway.

 

[shionoro]

Sort of branching off of a conversation @M3J and myself were having in the US Election thread, I was curious what his and anyone else's take on the topic of this video -


Sort of an analysis of what we know about most of the recent attackers, and examining how their radicalization occurred, why it may have happened, and why religious extremism exists in general. I found it pretty thought provoking anyway.

First of all: I know the guy who made the video from youtube and i REALLY dislike that guy

But anyway, in this video, the things he said were mostly right.
As I said in the other thread: Yes, it is rarely the very strict and traditional believers who engage in holy war.
It is a sect and sects win over people quickly by promising quick success.
In germany, there is the salafist sect which i talked about in the other thread (the guy of whom i said they enable youths to get into contact with terror groups in syria). And they even offer conversion to Islam via phone, it's basically a bit like teleevangelists in the US.

However, i have some things which i don't agree with in the video: First of all, in Würzburg and Ansbach we know by now that they were not lone wolfs. They were in contact with people from saudi arabia, both of them. They gave them instructions and had contact with them right before they went off to committ the attacks.
There is always SOME contact and some pushing. It is very uncommon that someone radicales himself just due to videos while his whole backround is normal.
Most oftenly, they get into some internet group or a sect or have people in their environment who help them radicalize.
That might be different in some cases (the orlando guy comes to mind), but with him it is not even clear what his intention was. I personally dont see him as an islamic terrorist, he worked awfully much like your usual actual lone hateful gunman.

That is different with most islamic perps. The guys in the church for example who cut the priest's throat were even described as calm and collected and told the nun they just wanted peace. You don#t become like that from judge watching videos of beheadings, there has to be more indoctrination at play, and in fact there was. One of the perpetrators even said he met the guy who was his 'spiritual mentor' in a prison

As for his thesis: It is true that it helps when the perpetrators have no real use or aim in life, but i don't think it is about redeeming themselves. It is more connected to megalomania. Everybody knows some guys who just don't know what to do with themselves and subsequently just drink, fight and fuck or gamble arround. Those guys would probably work way better with an actual goal like winning a war. In fact i have friends like that and they were really happy in the army. But armies today have the nasty habit of just doing peacekeeping missions which are kind of complex, or they go against your political believes, so that is not an option for everyone.
However, religion is often about a fight good against evil which may be lead with all means. And i think that is the kind of thing those people are interested at (not all of them, mind you, but i think a lot of the guys from europe and the US).

This becomes less clear with the refugees who committed acts in germany. We know that the guy from ansbach had a criminal record (but just drug abuse) and was also not the most devout muslim. But he didnt appear as a thug to the people who know him. The guy from wurzburg even less, people said he appeared positively to them and was very kind.
I believe that, whatever their reasons were, they were different from the people from the other incidents. For example, the guys from Belgium seemed to radicalize in their environment. they had a lot of people who agreed that france is evil arround them, watched the videos and had their extremist preachers arround the corner. Those people worked independently.
With the boy from Würzburg and the man from ansbach it rather appears like someone from saudi arabia sued them as pawns and broke their mental fortitude after they once came into contact with him. There are more than enough channels in the internet where even children can come into contact with radicals. They fish even in moderate islamic channels via private messages after they make out a possible pawn.

_____________________________

The thesis in the end about islam having to do with it: Well, partially.
I am an opponent of the 'islam has nothing to do with it' thesis too. But i don't think it is about what is actually written in the quran.

It is more about what kind of patterns and pictures have established themselves in the islamic world throughout history.

For example, Mohammed was a warlord. There is no talking arround that, he lead war and noone denies that.
The modalities of his warcraft are debated, for example, muslims often say he only defended himself when attacked.
But even in reliabel hadith, it is clear that mohammed killed people, had slaves and allowed his warriors to have female slaves.
So for someone who would rather fight and fuck than whatever people exspect from him, islamic wartime would be a good time in their heads.

Any decent muslim will not see it that way and will rather hold mohammed as a very disciplined man who had reasons for allowing slavery and only fought if necessary. But we are not talking about decent people here.
The general consensus in islam is that war is fine if you defend yourself and your brothers and quran and hadith are in many parts about how this war can look and that it is a great honour to fight it.
It just needs people who tell instable muslims that the time to defend themselves has come, and the ones who want to fight or want to die in an honourable way will rally up for it.

Now, why am i saying then it is not about the content of islam? Because these pictures were intact in christianity too once upon a time and could be taken out of the bible.
In the old testament, Moses was a warlord just like mohammed. Even before he fled from the egyptians, moses killed someone.
God approves what he does and promises to always fight by the jews/christians side and even demands them to smash their foes.

If the Quran had a sura which simply stated: 'Kill all infidels, no matter the context. Kill them. Simply kill them or you will definitely go to hell' and most of the islamic world ignored it, then it would not be a thing, much like people adhere the ten commandments but ignore the commandments which came after them which say that you should beat your son to death if he is disobedient. Because it simply isn't a thing.

The reason why terrorists can rally up instable people is, in my opinion, that the honourable fight for religion and against the opressor is rooted in those societies and spiritual belief systems, which can change over time. Other things which are rooted in many radical enviroments is antisemitism, anti americanism (and therefore anti westernism) and general misanthrophy.

It is much like you can rally up an american to join the army much better because you guys over there have a culture of respect for veterans and constant reminders about how brave they are, while in europe it is probably more common that they get hate and mockery for joining the army even as vets.
So, as an analogy: Even if you are against iraq war, the general consensus in the US is that veteran's risk their life for their country and thus should not be mocked (there are exceptions, but we saw what trump got when he mocked an iraq war vet).
I would say that the general consensus in islam is that the fight for islam does warrant respect. It is not as extreme as in the US example: most muslims hate isis. But there is a large enough group who is rather on the 'oh well, they are kind of extreme but they are not entirely wrong and fighting against the crusaders is not inherently bad' scale, exspecially when they think that western media employ propaganda to make isis seem bad.

In fact a lot of their recruits ran away quickly when they saw that it was not just propaganda that isis were psychopaths.

So, all in all: I think the cultural picturing as 'hero against the forces of evil' plays a much bigger part than any actual content of the quran.
This picture exists in the west, too, but rather in nonreligious contexts.

 

[xi0]

First of all: I know the guy who made the video from youtube and i REALLY dislike that guy

But anyway, in this video, the things he said were mostly right.

Well, I think the contrast between your two sentences sort of exemplifies why I brought up this topic and linked to his video. Glad to see you watched it instead of immediately dismissing it due to source. It's also why I decided against putting a disclaimer of sorts, because if people actually watched the video, there's nothing really unreasonable being said there, regardless of what you think of him. But yeah, he's a controversial person in the youtube community. It's a bit of an aside, but I'm curious as to why you dislike him so much? I'm not a fanboy of him or agree with all of what he says, but I do find a lot of his content to be of decent quality.

However, i have some things which i don't agree with in the video: First of all, in Würzburg and Ansbach we know by now that they were not lone wolfs.

Well, perhaps it was outdated information, the video is from last month.

That might be different in some cases (the orlando guy comes to mind), but with him it is not even clear what his intention was. I personally dont see him as an islamic terrorist, he worked awfully much like your usual actual lone hateful gunman.

So, because he attacked ethnic minorities his motivations were different? I mean, he still pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, and like Sargon stated, it will always be in their interest to claim responsibility for any and all attacks of this kind. But I find it weird when people deny a religious connection to attacks when the attackers themselves are venerating a deity or terrorist group with their dying breaths.

As for his thesis: It is true that it helps when the perpetrators have no real use or aim in life, but i don't think it is about redeeming themselves. It is more connected to megalomania. Everybody knows some guys who just don't know what to do with themselves and subsequently just drink, fight and fuck or gamble arround.

I personally don't think that radicalization is always about religiosity, but it is almost always related to extreme devotion to a cause. Many of these types probably are looking to fill this void inside them with religion, and not necessarily motivated by their faith/belief. I think that's why he was trying to make a correlation between a lot of these attackers being described as not being particularly religious in the first place. That these sort of acts are a way to not only redeem themselves in the eye of God, but also what they consider to be a religious authority.

However, religion is often about a fight good against evil which may be lead with all means. And i think that is the kind of thing those people are interested at (not all of them, mind you, but i think a lot of the guys from europe and the US).

I think this is a sentiment in most conservative circles, but it being the opinion of the general population is mostly a relic from the pre-Vietnam era. From a time when people felt wars were fought for just reasons, like WWII, etc and where the actually horrors of war weren't available at the click of a button. And I can definitely understand the population of a country with compulsory service having major disdain for the military, since ours is comprised of (thankfully) volunteers.

I am an opponent of the 'islam has nothing to do with it' thesis too. But i don't think it is about what is actually written in the quran.

It is more about what kind of patterns and pictures have established themselves in the islamic world throughout history.

Well, most of his examples were from hadith and sura as well (unless you also think that such writings had maintaining the status quo in mind foremost, not necessarily what Muhammad said himself) ...as well as the quotefrom Pope Urban during the Crusades, showing that it is clearly not unique to any one religion.

Any decent muslim will not see it that way and will rather hold mohammed as a very disciplined man who had reasons for allowing slavery and only fought if necessary.

A very disciplined man according to what standards? I supose you mean among his contemporaries?

Now, why am i saying then it is not about the content of islam? Because these pictures were intact in christianity too once upon a time and could be taken out of the bible.
In the old testament, Moses was a warlord just like mohammed. Even before he fled from the egyptians, moses killed someone.
God approves what he does and promises to always fight by the jews/christians side and even demands them to smash their foes.

Of course, hence the quote during the Crusades. But Sargon also made a point to say that you won't find a quote condoning violence against nonbelievers in the New Testament. Many Christians like to make this distinction, since most sects of Christianity mostly put an emphasis on the content of the New Testament, and not emphasizing the kind of terrible things the God of the Old Testament condoned. It's definitely cherry-picking, but his point is this is also done with Muslims and the Quran, and as well as other Abrahamic religions and the Pentateuch.

If the Quran had a sura which simply stated: 'Kill all infidels, no matter the context. Kill them. Simply kill them or you will definitely go to hell' and most of the islamic world ignored it, then it would not be a thing, much like people adhere the ten commandments but ignore the commandments which came after them which say that you should beat your son to death if he is disobedient. Because it simply isn't a thing.

Well, half of the commandments are things which most decent people of any functioning society followed, regardless of religious belief. The others are literally saying that thought itself is sin. While these definitely aren't as terrible as condoning genocide and slavery, they're still morally questionable IMO. This is mostly a stark contrast with the teachings of Jesus.

The reason why terrorists can rally up instable people is, in my opinion, that the honourable fight for religion and against the opressor is rooted in those societies and spiritual belief systems, which can change over time. Other things which are rooted in many radical enviroments is antisemitism, anti americanism (and therefore anti westernism) and general misanthrophy.

Yeah of course. I mean, I understand that many muslims even take exception with radicals justifying their actions as being jihad in the first place. That jihad can be an internal struggle within oneself, etc. But regardless of scripture, things like this exist due to the type of society theocracy fosters.

It is much like you can rally up an american to join the army much better because you guys over there have a culture of respect for veterans and constant reminders about how brave they are, while in europe it is probably more common that they get hate and mockery for joining the army even as vets.

Well, there is a lot of money and benefits in being in the military as well. It seems this sort of thing doesn't exist in a uniform way in Europe and other parts of the world.

But there is a large enough group who is rather on the 'oh well, they are kind of extreme but they are not entirely wrong and fighting against the crusaders is not inherently bad' scale, exspecially when they think that western media employ propaganda to make isis seem bad.

Yeah, I think a lot of people who are critical of Islam point to this being a problem. The notion of a "silent" majority or whatever. Perhaps that's a bit overplayed, as the general populace within theocratic societies really have no room to speak against the leadership.

 

[shionoro]

@xi0 I tend to write walls of text and i think if i would quote every one of your quotes it would get out of hand, so i will reply in a general way and hope not to miss any point

First of all to the youtube guy: I have in fact watches some of his videos and in one he adresses topics like feminism (kind of a pet peeve of mine), and i felt like he burned a lot of strawmen in that one. And when i looked closer, he often has a rather populist tone and argumentation which is masked with acting like he investigates thourough into matters. But in fact he often does not.
The thing is, you won't know it most of the time. In the case of the video i watched, i did know it, and thus i instantly had to doubt anything he told in his other videos because i would risk to be mislead.
I am absolutely fine with different opinions, in fact i do read some blogs with people who i do disagree with oftentimes. But when i watch this guy, i have the feeling that he is some kind of a fraud who is given too much credit.
That does not mean he does not make some good videos. The video he did here was not bad. But i feel like i either know about the matter beforehand, so i dont have to watch the video, or i dont and then cannot tell whether he is accurate.


____________________

to the point of the motivation of terrorists: I agree with you when you say the motivation of them is not always religious. In fact, i think it is rarely religious at all. very religious muslims can be obnoxious, hateful people (and also of course very kind, wise people), but they don't tend to get into sects like any given dschihadi sect. Most of them are far too busy studying the quran and reciting it and fearing that they do not live strict enough, they don't have the time or will to let some sinning shitheads tell them to blow themselves up.
As i said, i think the people who let themselves be rallied up the best to commit actual terror acts are the kind of people who are bored out of their life and want a fight to fight. I don#t think they need to think badly of themselves for being a criminal to do so. I think they just think that it is nice to have some actual aim and validation for the violence they committ.
I would somewhat compare it with russians civilians fighting on the separatist side in the crimea war. I think most of those were bored people who were more than happy to take up a fight which they could tell themselves was a good thing and become heroes.
It is not a big difference, because, ya, they probably say something like 'before i found to islam i was a sinner' (but even that not necessarily, as a lot of people still dont live in the islamic way even after they got into terror cycles) and like to tell themselves they will go to heaven.
But those guys are not scared into joining the jihad because they fear due to their sinning lifestyle.
They are lured into dschihad for fame and an aim in life. Feeling morally superior is just the cherry on top.

To the point of jesus and the teachings: I do not think that jesus was opposed to the teachings of the old testament. We see it that way today as christians, but jesus himself said that he did not come to change old rules (except for eye for an eye). Jesus found most rules from the old testament totally fine. What he did was reinterpreting them somewhat, but he never said the old testament or the commandments were not still intact. He said the opposite of that. What jesus did in the bible was reinterpreting those teachings from the lens of a loving person.
When jesus said 'whoever is without sin should throw the first stone', he, in my opinion, never meant that stoning people is not an option. He just thought that people should not do it lightheartedly just because it is a rule.
Why do i think so? well, because we got the letters of paulus, for example, who is less happy go lucky than jesus, and for example orders that women have to wear a veil when they pray or should have their hair cut off if they don't. He there is clearly following jewish law here. Jesus himself said he sees himself as a jew. There is no reason to assume jesus really changed old laws. Jesus followed the laws which he thought were the laws of judaism, he just, at times, interpreted them somewhat less strict or didnt follow through with them.
Mohammed did that too. Mohammed did a lot of nice and honourable things in the stories about him, sometimes being less strict than quran would imply and being rather forgiving. But that does not change the general rule. The story that he forgave a woman who regularly threw trash at him and eve nlooked after her when she was sick does not change the fact that he installed a rule of killing people who insult the prophet (and via that islam).
The same way, the story that jesus saved someone from being stoned to death does not mean that he was generally opposed to old rules which imply stoning. So, if we talk about cherry picking: If there was a general spirit of war in christian societies, i could easily take the 'i did not come to change old rules' stuff jesus said and then go for the old testament and its stories. Because mohammed, at times, said the same stuff as jesus did about forgiving and trusting that god will judge, not man. I don't think it is the division between old and new testament that helps here against the cherry picking, it is our societies interpretation of the bible and the themes which are transported in christianity. And these themes, yes, focus a lot on the new testament.
Most christians do not even know the nasty pages from the bible, even if they are numerous. If the islamic world was in another state, and only very peaceful hadiths would be the ones told and dschihad was not more than 'oh that thing from the past where mohammed defended himself and then made peace after the enemy gave up', then i think we would have the same picture.

To the point of theocracy and religion influencing terrorism: I have talked about this in that thread already, i think, yes, religion is one cause for radicalization and a will to fight, at least the monotheistic ones.
The nature of monotheistic religion is that the best possible world is the one in which everyone is a servant of god.
This naturally gives pride to the believers in many cases over the nonbelievers.
I think a muslim who lives isolated in the west and is not happy with his life (or bored or has no aim) at this point is affected by similar effects which we know from neonazis: Since they are not happy with themselves as a person, they search for a group identity.
Islam is that group identity, but they can still not really be happy about it when it just comes to their ego:
They live in a nonislamic state, islamic societies are in chaos and then there is the narrative of the west bombing them (which in their head means the west is stronger).
That hurts their pride even more, because in this cocktail of monotheistic pride and personal complexes just tilts them.

Like some mass shooters were motivated by women ridicouling them (so in a way going 'i will show you who is strong, you laughed about me the last time'), i think many islamic terrorists want to stick it to the society in which they are savages and show their superiority.
With the motivating factor that they are not alone, but a group. They know some people will think of them as heroes and they can tell themselves they go to paradise for it.

It is as if you'd open a suicide forum in which every single one who jumps of a bridge gets a standing ovation and a song by their favourite band before they jump.

The effect of this on terrorists is perhaps the most similar to how drug mobs work in south america. Those guys often go into death for their mob, too, and they know that they even sometimes gets actual songs about them in their districts if they get to fame.

 

[xi0]

I am absolutely fine with different opinions, in fact i do read some blogs with people who i do disagree with oftentimes. But when i watch this guy, i have the feeling that he is some kind of a fraud who is given too much credit.
That does not mean he does not make some good videos. The video he did here was not bad. But i feel like i either know about the matter beforehand, so i dont have to watch the video, or i dont and then cannot tell whether he is accurate.

Well I guess that's sort of immaterial in regards to this, because I think the opinion was well-presented and none of the "evidence" was misleading IMO. But of course, when it comes to any content creator debating politics and issues societies face, fact checking is sometimes a necessity I guess. But I do often find myself coming into conflict with a decent amount of modern progressive thought, despite considering myself someone with a majority of liberal principles (sort of similar to Sargon himself, supposedly. But I guess that's for another topic and thread.

As i said, i think the people who let themselves be rallied up the best to commit actual terror acts are the kind of people who are bored out of their life and want a fight to fight. I don#t think they need to think badly of themselves for being a criminal to do so. I think they just think that it is nice to have some actual aim and validation for the violence they committ.

Yeah, I think validation is definitely a huge component here...but nonetheless, it's validation that is mostly justified by scripture/religious writing and the preaching of their peers and authority figures like wahhabists.

Jesus himself said he sees himself as a jew. There is no reason to assume jesus really changed old laws. Jesus followed the laws which he thought were the laws of judaism, he just, at times, interpreted them somewhat less strict or didnt follow through with them.

Well, I think that doesn't really run contrary to my point - in regards to what Jesus said or thought (assuming we even know he existed...but I digress). However, I still think that in general, the average Christian in the West will place a higher value on the teachings of Jesus, compared to someone like Moses, for example. That was my only point. "Cafeteria Christian" exists as a term here for a reason and I think there are "warmer" and more "welcome" feelings about something that Jesus supposedly said, compared to other biblical figures (and for the most part, for good reason).

If the islamic world was in another state, and only very peaceful hadiths would be the ones told and dschihad was not more than 'oh that thing from the past where mohammed defended himself and then made peace after the enemy gave up', then i think we would have the same picture.

Oh, no disagreement there from me. I don't discriminate when it comes to problematic religious ideas. I mean, a lot of what the biblical figures said of God's will in the Pentateuch could technically justify what modern jihadists are supposedly trying to accomplish, never mind the Quran.

 

[Reebi]

I don't think religion by itself would stop progress, it wouldn't either care or mind. It's the people who stop progress, whether for religious reason or person reasons that wouldn't be justified. It's not like The Bible specifically says "science hokey pokey!" as much as it is the people who don't want to risk science endangering them/angering God or proving whatever they believed in might have been wrong.

Back then (early modern era) how else would they describe stars without knowledge of gases and astrophysics? The church, which had a lot of educational facilities, of course would say God created them and use a theological point of view. Those that discovered the world went against the church and in order to preserve power, there was a divide. It's like how many wars in history were created to gain territory. They ended up being a different religion in the process. Like Science vs Church or Religion vs Religion, it's always people who use it as an excuse to gain control. In other words, science isn't an attack on religion but an attack on the people who use it as a means of control. If religion teaches one way and people do the other, can anyone really blame religion? No, it's people who dilute it to justify their actions.

Just my two cents.

 

[M3J]

Back then (early modern era) how else would they describe stars without knowledge of gases and astrophysics? The church, which had a lot of educational facilities, of course would say God created them and use a theological point of view. Those that discovered the world went against the church and in order to preserve power, there was a divide. It's like how many wars in history were created to gain territory. They ended up being a different religion in the process. Like Science vs Church or Religion vs Religion, it's always people who use it as an excuse to gain control. In other words, science isn't an attack on religion but an attack on the people who use it as a means of control. If religion teaches one way and people do the other, can anyone really blame religion? No, it's people who dilute it to justify their actions.

Just my two cents.

Exactly what I was thinking. It's why I can't take religion seriously at all, given what they've attempted to do. Most religions seem to do nothing but create trouble and give people something to hide behind to justify their bigotry or hatred.

 

[Reebi]

Exactly what I was thinking. It's why I can't take religion seriously at all, given what they've attempted to do. Most religions seem to do nothing but create trouble and give people something to hide behind to justify their bigotry or hatred.

Religion itself isn't bad. It's purpose is to make people a better version of themselves through loving each other and battling their inner demons. The world would be a much better place if we put aside differences or admitted failure. However, it's been given a bad name because people have taken teachings out of context to justify the very things that go against religion.

 

[kkck]

Religion itself isn't bad. It's purpose is to make people a better version of themselves through loving each other and battling their inner demons. The world would be a much better place if we put aside differences or admitted failure. However, it's been given a bad name because people have taken teachings out of context to justify the very things that go against religion.

You confused a self-help book with a religion. A religion's purpose is to teach people about whichever god or version of god it is prophesying. Besides, religion doesn't even have a bad name or anything to begin with. Otherwise the vast majority of the world wouldn't be religious....

 

[Reebi]

You confused a self-help book with a religion. A religion's purpose is to teach people about whichever god or version of god it is prophesying. Besides, religion doesn't even have a bad name or anything to begin with. Otherwise the vast majority of the world wouldn't be religious....

There are those that think religion itself is evil but that's because of people who have used it to gain power or commit mass murders. Yes, versions of God are taught in various religions but the purpose of that God and following a deity's orders to help people gain inner peace with themselves and others. Humans are capable of vial acts and in order to not let our desires, demons, emotions, etc, get the better of us being like God, or religion, was designed to insure accountability. Now, people have taken that accountability to the extreme but that should reflect it as a whole.

Personally, I believe people are generally good and have gentle hearts and everyone struggles with something. Doesn't mean they are bad just human.

 

[Doughboy]

Although I'm religious myself, I understand where atheists come from. They don't believe everything happens for a reason or there's no greater power in humanity that can dialect why certain things happen. When they die they just believe they'll fall asleep forever in the dirt. I just simply can't believe that but it's understandable that there are no kinds of extraterrestrial spiritual powers above regular people. Simply they ask for proof, where is it? How can any of us prove it physically? It's ironic too, seems like more heads become atheist after growing up believing in God

 

[Spirit]

Well being one myself I can say that I do actually believe things happen for a reason, but I hold more faith in a humans actions than one of divinity. It's like living in a world made up of several different realities. I simply live in one without God.

--- Double Post Merged, May 25, 2017, Original Post Date: May 25, 2017 ---

As far as death goes, I really don't know what to expect. How can anyone claim to know what happens after death? No one will ever know.

 

[M3J]

Religion itself isn't bad. It's purpose is to make people a better version of themselves through loving each other and battling their inner demons. The world would be a much better place if we put aside differences or admitted failure. However, it's been given a bad name because people have taken teachings out of context to justify the very things that go against religion.

but religion itself can be used for bad things. Its purpose isn't to make people better, it's to control people. It's one of the reasons why people take teachings out of context, to justify their hatred and get an excuse.

 

[shionoro]

There is no such thing as something being abused.

An object or teaching gives rise toall the possibilities it can be used in and it has to be judged in its effect on humanity.
And I think religion is a thing with a negative effect on humanity as a whole, at least in modern times.

 

[Reebi]

Well being one myself I can say that I do actually believe things happen for a reason, but I hold more faith in a humans actions than one of divinity. It's like living in a world made up of several different realities. I simply live in one without God.

--- Double Post Merged, May 25, 2017, Original Post Date: May 25, 2017 ---

As far as death goes, I really don't know what to expect. How can anyone claim to know what happens after death? No one will ever know.

That is true, no one can prove what happens after death, especially biological death. Many people experience clinical death but technically their bodies are still working. That's why people who are religious just gotta believe they will be in a better place and take a leap of faith. It wouldn't be fair and it's kinda morbid to think that someone who does despicable things can be in the same boat as someone with good intentions. What would be the point of living following laws, rules, etc.?

but religion itself can be used for bad things. Its purpose isn't to make people better, it's to control people. It's one of the reasons why people take teachings out of context, to justify their hatred and get an excuse.

How so? The religious text I know are about fixing oneself and loving others.

 

[Spirit]

Religious texts are not immune to being manipulated maliciously by those with ill intentions. Look at ISIS for example.