Do You Know the Real Islam?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Are the extremists influential because many people follow their actions or is it simply because they are who the press pick up most? Most people who are comfortable with their faith don't change their beliefs because of what some hothead has to say.

---

I don't think an extremist has to just be a suicide-bomber or a Fred Phelps burning korans. How do we accept parents telling their children that they must behave because if they don't the invisible man in the sky will send them to hell. That is emotional child abuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

No offence meant but I find that an extremely naive sentiment.

Science is not and has probably never been purely about the proving/disproving of abstract concepts. Behind any new scientific development there are budgets, egos and political factors involved. This is even more true where science intersects with industry which is increasingly common.

Try looking into science in Soviet Russia where anything that contradicted the atheist Communist line was banned.

How about the suppression of evidence that linked cigarette smoking to cancer, initially demonstrated by the Nazis then by scientists elsewhere in the 1960's? There are still scientists around that try to minimise or disprove that link. Do you believe that those scientists are all religious or do you think another factor, namely massive funding budgets from tobacco companies might be an influence? How about the climate change debate?

---

They haven't done these things in the name of atheism though, have they?

The communist scientists didn't hold back science because they were atheists, they did it because they were communist. But this leads us onto a subtle point. In North Korea, Kim Jong Il is painted as a God. The similarities between communism and religion are obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Who preserved many of those Greek texts? The Muslims. Aren't they religious too?

---

That is correct but one positive does not out-weigh hundreds of negatives.

The simple fact is , the amount of times that religion has advocated the burning of texts (or even the writer itself e.g Salman Rushdie) is massive. Texts are never burnt in the name of atheism, or at least, not out of anything but making a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

I don't think an extremist has to just be a suicide-bomber or a Fred Phelps burning korans. How do we accept parents telling their children that they must behave because if they don't the invisible man in the sky will send them to hell. That is emotional child abuse.

---

You really need to learn to think for yourself rather than merely regurgitate anti-religion propaganda because your point is rather boringly one-dimensional.

How can a Buddhist or Hindu threaten their children with hell when they don't believe in a heaven or hell?

Christians, Muslims and Jews are all moving away from a fire and brimstone approach to encourage good behaviour. If a parent is going to threaten their kids with hell then it seems to me obvious that if you take away their belief system they would merely be threatening them with something else like a good beating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

They haven't done these things in the name of atheism though, have they?

---

No but atheist scientists have been as bad as anyone else in ignoring or trying to devalue theories that threaten them for whatever reason. Don't try to put atheist scientists on a pedestal, just like religious scientists they happen to be HUMAN BEINGS and behave as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

That is correct but one positive does not out-weigh hundreds of negatives.

The simple fact is , the amount of times that religion has advocated the burning of texts (or even the writer itself e.g Salman Rushdie) is massive.

---

The renaissance and all of modern Western science as we know it is derived from science preserved and much expanded upon by the Muslims, itself taken from ancient Greece and Rome. This includes engineering, physics, chemistry, mathematics and medicine as well as philosophy.

Elsewhere we see ancient Hindus pioneer basic mathematics including the concept of zero. The Taoist Chinese with their equally important basic advances such as writing, paper, currency, gunpowder, the concept of bureaucracy and government and the like.

According to you all this is worthless because these developments were made under the banner of religion. Wow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

Texts are never burnt in the name of atheism, or at least, not out of anything but making a point.

---

Nothing can be blamed on atheism itself because it doesn't exist as an organised religion or even as a political movement which is rather convenient isn't it.

However plenty of books have been burnt in the name of atheist ideologies. Nazis and Communists for a start.

Before accusing the religious for being extremists you should take a good close look at yourself.

You have claimed that the multiple belief systems around the world of widely divergent philosophies, together with the political structures that developed around them that have lasted for millenia with literally billions of followers have nothing positive going for them, bathing them with hate instead.

This is a staggeringly undeveloped view, one of a fanatic as only such a person can paint such a simplistic picture of a massively complex entity such as religion which has an effect across just about every field of human endeavour I can think of.

It is blatantly obvious that something as influential as religion has both positive and negative aspects as indeed just about any human activity has, yet you happily claim that any positive aspect is minimal and compensated for by the negative aspects.

You sir are really as close minded as the people you criticise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Nothing can be blamed on atheism itself because it doesn't exist as an organised religion or even as a political movement which is rather convenient isn't it.

---

Rather convenient? What on earth do you mean by that statement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Rather convenient? What on earth do you mean by that statement?

---

It should be pretty obvious. Time and again we have heard the argument that 'atheists don't do that because that has never been done in the name of atheism'. Of course nothing has ever been done in the name of atheism because it is not an organised religion nor does it have a political movement or organisation. Instead we can only judge atheists on what they do as individuals which makes any undesirable action they perform easily denied as being due to their 'religious' beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

It should be pretty obvious. Time and again we have heard the argument that 'atheists don't do that because that has never been done in the name of atheism'. Of course nothing has ever been done in the name of atheism because it is not an organised religion nor does it have a political movement or organisation. Instead we can only judge atheists on what they do as individuals which makes any undesirable action they perform easily denied as being due to their 'religious' beliefs.

---

It struck me as a jibe at those of us who are atheists, suggesting that in some way our lack of belief is a 'convenient' shroud for something. But the rest of the point you make there is reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

You really need to learn to think for yourself rather than merely regurgitate anti-religion propaganda because your point is rather boringly one-dimensional.

How can a Buddhist or Hindu threaten their children with hell when they don't believe in a heaven or hell?

Christians, Muslims and Jews are all moving away from a fire and brimstone approach to encourage good behaviour. If a parent is going to threaten their kids with hell then it seems to me obvious that if you take away their belief system they would merely be threatening them with something else like a good beating.



No but atheist scientists have been as bad as anyone else in ignoring or trying to devalue theories that threaten them for whatever reason. Don't try to put atheist scientists on a pedestal, just like religious scientists they happen to be HUMAN BEINGS and behave as such.



The renaissance and all of modern Western science as we know it is derived from science preserved and much expanded upon by the Muslims, itself taken from ancient Greece and Rome. This includes engineering, physics, chemistry, mathematics and medicine as well as philosophy.

Elsewhere we see ancient Hindus pioneer basic mathematics including the concept of zero. The Taoist Chinese with their equally important basic advances such as writing, paper, currency, gunpowder, the concept of bureaucracy and government and the like.

According to you all this is worthless because these developments were made under the banner of religion. Wow.



Nothing can be blamed on atheism itself because it doesn't exist as an organised religion or even as a political movement which is rather convenient isn't it.

However plenty of books have been burnt in the name of atheist ideologies. Nazis and Communists for a start.

Before accusing the religious for being extremists you should take a good close look at yourself.

You have claimed that the multiple belief systems around the world of widely divergent philosophies, together with the political structures that developed around them that have lasted for millenia with literally billions of followers have nothing positive going for them, bathing them with hate instead.

This is a staggeringly undeveloped view, one of a fanatic as only such a person can paint such a simplistic picture of a massively complex entity such as religion which has an effect across just about every field of human endeavour I can think of.

It is blatantly obvious that something as influential as religion has both positive and negative aspects as indeed just about any human activity has, yet you happily claim that any positive aspect is minimal and compensated for by the negative aspects.

You sir are really as close minded as the people you criticise.

---

Okay, so now what I thought was a civilised debate has come down to you making personal insults. You are one of the forum members who is better than that, Malbec. I made the point earlier that people aren't allowed to criticise religion because it is religion and you are proving my point.

I have read everything that you have put forward in arguing religion as a force for good. But I counter this by saying that the good things are done by people because of the goodness of humanity itself. Many religious people have done and will continue to do good, but I think good people will do good, and would have done good even without religion. You could call it humanism if you like.

You go on to make a false claim that I think all developments made under the banner of religion are worthless. Where on Earth have you got this idea from?

I don't claim them to be worthless. I argue that these developments would come about whether the philosophers , scientists, doctors etc were religious or not. And I also argue that religion has supressed or retarded these developments more than it has advanced them. But apparently this makes makes me close-minded.

I remember just last Thursday at work I was discussing literature with a colleague. She is a young pescetarian girl who describes herself as a hippy, does lots of charity work for the under-privilidged and for the environment, and is a believer. I was stating how I prefer non-ficiton works (I cited Hawking and Brian Cox) to fiction. The response of this religious person staggered me.

She said :
'Oh, Brian Cox is that guy off the TV isn't he, it's a shame everything he says is rubbish'

I didn't say anything to her, but I thought to myself how awful is it that this young woman has rejected knowledge just because it contradicts the medieval myth she was brainwashed into believing as a child.

Even if religion has had positive impact throughout history, we have outgrown it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

I have read everything that you have put forward in arguing religion as a force for good. But I counter this by saying that the good things are done by people because of the goodness of humanity itself.

---

This is a false claim and mankind has show that there is nothing inherently good about it; a goodly chunk of it may be submissive but that is far from good.

Your whole arguement is based on man creating something it had no reason or ability to create, without which there would be no evil.
That boat does not float.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

Okay, so now what I thought was a civilised debate has come down to you making personal insults. You are one of the forum members who is better than that, Malbec. I made the point earlier that people aren't allowed to criticise religion because it is religion and you are proving my point.

---

Its not a personal insult. Take a deep look at your own posts. You are incredibly intolerant of religion and are utterly blind to the shortcomings of atheists. That fulfils my criteria for an extremist. You judge what you don't like purely by its most negative attributes, generalising them and ignoring or explaining away any positive attributes.

BTW to clear this up I am not religious at all, I am somewhere between atheist and agnostic. I am however utterly intolerant of intolerance and ignorance and I find your kind of militant atheism abhorrent. How can you sweep away the beliefs of billions of people across the world, the vast majority of whom use it in a positive stabilising fashion and ridicule both them and their beliefs? Can you not see the staggering arrogance in that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

I have read everything that you have put forward in arguing religion as a force for good. But I counter this by saying that the good things are done by people because of the goodness of humanity itself. Many religious people have done and will continue to do good, but I think good people will do good, and would have done good even without religion. You could call it humanism if you like.

---

Sure, but neither can you get away from the fact that many great things HAVE been done under the banner of religion, therefore it HAS been a force for good. You cannot simply negate this by claiming its all because of 'humanism'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

You go on to make a false claim that I think all developments made under the banner of religion are worthless. Where on Earth have you got this idea from?

I don't claim them to be worthless. I argue that these developments would come about whether the philosophers , scientists, doctors etc were religious or not. And I also argue that religion has supressed or retarded these developments more than it has advanced them. But apparently this makes makes me close-minded.

---

When those scientific discoveries were made by religious people doing research funded by religious groups how can you say religion has had no part in them? Sure, you could argue that in the absence of religion the same scientific discoveries would have been made but they were. And you're right some religions at some times have also suppressed or retarded scientific developments. Globally I would argue that scientific progress has been greatly aided by religious groups, however since atheistic philosophies tend to originate in the West they tend to focus on the Catholic Church and its attitude to science, and I can agree that they have generally delayed the progress of science. One can say the same for many non-religious political systems too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

I remember just last Thursday at work I was discussing literature with a colleague. She is a young pescetarian girl who describes herself as a hippy, does lots of charity work for the under-privilidged and for the environment, and is a believer. I was stating how I prefer non-ficiton works (I cited Hawking and Brian Cox) to fiction. The response of this religious person staggered me.

She said :
'Oh, Brian Cox is that guy off the TV isn't he, it's a shame everything he says is rubbish'

I didn't say anything to her, but I thought to myself how awful is it that this young woman has rejected knowledge just because it contradicts the medieval myth she was brainwashed into believing as a child.

---

Wonderful anecdote. I suppose you've never found an atheist with an utter ignorance of science or who rejects scientific advances because it doesn't fit in with their worldview? Unfortunately I have to deal with patients who have no understanding of how science works and would prefer to have their disease treated by all kinds of alternative therapies with no scientific basis whatsoever and believe me, atheists are by no means immune from this kind of viewpoint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Its not a personal insult. Take a deep look at your own posts. You are incredibly intolerant of religion and are utterly blind to the shortcomings of atheists. That fulfils my criteria for an extremist. You judge what you don't like purely by its most negative attributes, generalising them and ignoring or explaining away any positive attributes.

BTW to clear this up I am not religious at all, I am somewhere between atheist and agnostic. I am however utterly intolerant of intolerance and ignorance and I find your kind of militant atheism abhorrent. How can you sweep away the beliefs of billions of people across the world, the vast majority of whom use it in a positive stabilising fashion and ridicule both them and their beliefs? Can you not see the staggering arrogance in that?

---

I don't disagree with your standpoint, but surely you must agree that there are situations in which one cannot escape the fact that the effect of a particular religious belief, or, more to the point, clash of opposing religious beliefs has been more damaging than if said religious belief or beliefs had not entered the equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Its not a personal insult. Take a deep look at your own posts. You are incredibly intolerant of religion and are utterly blind to the shortcomings of atheists. That fulfils my criteria for an extremist. You judge what you don't like purely by its most negative attributes, generalising them and ignoring or explaining away any positive attributes.

---

I am not blind to the shortcomings of atheists. People will always do bad things, but are atheists doing bad things because they are atheist?

Perfect place to quote Weinberg:

With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

BTW to clear this up I am not religious at all, I am somewhere between atheist and agnostic. I am however utterly intolerant of intolerance and ignorance and I find your kind of militant atheism abhorrent. How can you sweep away the beliefs of billions of people across the world, the vast majority of whom use it in a positive stabilising fashion and ridicule both them and their beliefs? Can you not see the staggering arrogance in
that?

Sure, but neither can you get away from the fact that many great things HAVE been done under the banner of religion, therefore it HAS been a force for good. You cannot simply negate this by claiming its all because of 'humanism'

---

If it makes me arrogant then so be it.

I personally think that we should make a stand when other peoples beliefs cross the line and start to intrude into our everyday lives, and it is not just extremists who are guilty of this. I'm not going to be told that I should shy away from ridiculing their beliefs.

In the closing sentence of my last post (that you didn't quote), I conceeded that organised religion might be able to lay claim to some positive things. But I think the opposite has happened much more often.

Why does claiming that religion has more achieved more evil than good make me arrogant and close-minded? It is just my opinion and I have justified it where I can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Wonderful anecdote. I suppose you've never found an atheist with an utter ignorance of science or who rejects scientific advances because it doesn't fit in with their worldview? Unfortunately I have to deal with patients who have no understanding of how science works and would prefer to have their disease treated by all kinds of alternative therapies with no scientific basis whatsoever and believe me, atheists are by no means immune from this kind of viewpoint.

---

Once again, they don't think that because they are atheist, they think like that because they are ignorant to reason and just happen to be atheist. The girl I quoted was ignorant (to physics) because of her religion.