What to do with 'religion'

[btthegreat]

Much in what you say. Though you discount the harm that religion still inflicts. For an insight into what Islam does to people, women in particular, I suggest reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I am now reading her *Nomad'.

This one is simple. Either you hold 'religion' responsible for the harm people do who believe, and you give religion the credit for the good people do who believe or you put the onus and credit consistently on people for using, exploiting or propagating its content for their good and evil acts. What tends to happen is that agenda determines that these two get split apart. I hold people as the actors completely responsible in their choices. When religious people (or atheists or anti theists for that matter) "pick and choose' or cherry pick which versions, which quotes, which theologians/sources, and which themes in a specific faith, they discern, highlight, and act on they act as a primary rather than some secondary. A lot of folk like to sneer at 'cherry picking', I think its a fantastic idea because I like cherry trees and their fruit but I don't like wormy or moldy cherries.

A religion that has hung around for centuries offers a large buffet of history and themes and propaganda points from which both its adherents or its enemies get to choose. There is a responsibility to choose well, wisely and moderately from that buffet. There is a strain of modern Islamic thought that encompasses feminist themes.

I provide some rather basic links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_feminists
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=islamic+feminist+movement&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

I think its a fine idea to promote their works and their ideas to highlight reform.

My question to you, is if these feminists claim that their faith in Islam inspired and strengthened their resolve to promote reform, will you give them or Islam the credit for that positive impact?

 

[Yasureoktoo]

You are very critical of Islam. Rightfully so, but you are not critical of Christianity, which is even more violent and allows pedophilia.

Where did you get that information. Islam is far more violent, and promotes pedophilia.
Big Mo married a 6 year old.

 

[Far right dem]

Where did you get that information. Islam is far more violent, and promotes pedophilia.
Big Mo married a 6 year old.

Yep. And jesus was also a pedophile. You know there is a reason jesus is a prophet in islam. Being a pedophile is a prerequisite.

 

[Sweden]

This one is simple. Either you hold 'religion' responsible for the harm people do who believe, and you give religion the credit for the good people do who believe or you put the onus and credit consistently on people for using, exploiting or propagating its content for their good and evil acts. What tends to happen is that agenda determines that these two get split apart. I hold people as the actors completely responsible in their choices. When religious people (or atheists or anti theists for that matter) "pick and choose' or cherry pick which versions, which quotes, which theologians/sources, and which themes in a specific faith, they discern, highlight, and act on they act as a primary rather than some secondary. A lot of folk like to sneer at 'cherry picking', I think its a fantastic idea because I like cherry trees and their fruit but I don't like wormy or moldy cherries.

A religion that has hung around for centuries offers a large buffet of history and themes and propaganda points from which both its adherents or its enemies get to choose. There is a responsibility to choose well, wisely and moderately from that buffet. There is a strain of modern Islamic thought that encompasses feminist themes.

I provide some rather basic links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_feminists
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=islamic+feminist+movement&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

I think its a fine idea to promote their works and their ideas to highlight reform.

My question to you, is if these feminists claim that their faith in Islam inspired and strengthened their resolve to promote reform, will you give them or Islam the credit for that positive impact?

Islam is all embracing, authoritarian and absolutist. Its adherents most certainly do not "get to choose" which bits they like or, more importantly, which bits they do not. Where Islam rules any attempt to question even one 'Word of Allah' in the Koran is dangerous. (It can, of course, be dangerous even in non-Muslim countries).

Once again read Ayaan Hirsi Ali for an inside account of Islam; far more authentic than anything I can say as merely an outside observer who has lived in two Muslim countries.

Your rather pompous 'question' presupposes that these so-called 'Islamic feminists' will achieve even the slightest reform of a totally male dominated primitive philosophy and world view. Ask me again when there is some indication that Islam can be reformed.

 

[Luce]

Islam is all embracing, authoritarian and absolutist. Its adherents most certainly do not "get to choose" which bits they like or, more importantly, which bits they do not.

Then why are there 4 major sects of Islam?

 

[tecoyah]

What to do with 'religion'
Ignore it as it goes away.

 

[Sweden]

Then why are there 4 major sects of Islam?

But they do not peacefully co-exist in the same time or space. Consider Iraq, where Shias and Sunnis are devoted to killing each other.

 

[Luce]

But they do not peacefully co-exist in the same time or space. Consider Iraq, where Shias and Sunnis are devoted to killing each other.

And both of them want to kill the Sufi and the Druze.

Sounds like Christianity in the 30 years war.

 

[Luce]

Hell, in that period, everyone wanted to kill everyone who even slightly deviated.

Except Gustav Adolphe. He just wanted everyone to shut the hell up for a few minutes.

 

[Arlette]

What to do about religion - discredit it. Expose it for the fraud it is. Then toss it onto the dung heap of history

 

[Mulefoot]

What to do about religion - discredit it. Expose it for the fraud it is. Then toss it onto the dung heap of history

Couldn't agree more. Religion is nasty, nasty stuff.

It put Christ on the cross.

 

[btthegreat]

Islam is all embracing, authoritarian and absolutist. Its adherents most certainly do not "get to choose" which bits they like or, more importantly, which bits they do not. Where Islam rules any attempt to question even one 'Word of Allah' in the Koran is dangerous. (It can, of course, be dangerous even in non-Muslim countries).

Once again read Ayaan Hirsi Ali for an inside account of Islam; far more authentic than anything I can say as merely an outside observer who has lived in two Muslim countries.

Your rather pompous 'question' presupposes that these so-called 'Islamic feminists' will achieve even the slightest reform of a totally male dominated primitive philosophy and world view. Ask me again when there is some indication that Islam can be reformed.

You are right you are not authentic and that matters a lot.. You would peek my interest some if you were fluent in classical Arabic, had a formal education in Islamic studies and spent years learning the Quran and the hadiths. I always give great deference to those that have been immersed in any faith, to interpret it in the context of the culture, and history.

As for this author you offer up, I would have to actually do a lot of reading. Not fair to read the critics, and not the defenders. I just am not nearly that interested. All faiths, philosophies, ideologies and belief systems have both, and many are incredibly passionate spending years of their adult life trying to destroy or laud ideas which they see as uniquely dangerous or humanity redeeming.

Whether Islam reforms, or evolves or grows or just withers away, its the same question we can pose about any set of beliefs values or ideas with broad acceptance religious or secular. You want to isolate it for special concern, and that tells me more about you and your passions towards it, than Islam itself.

"Islam is all embracing, authoritarian and absolutist. Its adherents most certainly do not "get to choose" which bits they like or, more importantly, which bits they do not." And that line is utter bullshit. We would not have disparate strains, sects, and strands in Islam if that were true and all muslims would behave identically and be taught the same responses ,priorities and answers and we both know that is not true. It does not fit your agenda, but muslims accross this globe are a very diverse group of people and they do not interpret and prioritize the religious text and hadiths the same way.

Take your islamophobia elsewhere. This conversation is done.

 

[The Baron]

The only time religion is a problem, is when it’s forced on others. Especially when it’s incorporated into laws.

If people kept their religion to themselves it wouldn’t be a problem at all. Probably wouldn’t even have a forum here at DP.

Religion is simply a world-view like atheism is a world-view. All laws are based on some type of world-view (Christianity, Atheism, Catholicism, Socialism, Fascism, etc.). Elections are simply a way of deciding whose morals the rest of us will have to follow.

 

[NWO_Spook]

No, there really is nothing to suggest that there might even be a god. Only theists bring science into it because they think there is a god and therefor can be measured. But as there is no god then science has nothing to do with it.

Still it stands as a contradiction. How can you state that we do not if a god exists and also that a god does not exist?

I am not that far off what you are saying but with a slight difference. I would refer to myself as an ignostic atheist but with the caveat that I am either one or the other , not both.

I too employ the term 'agnostic atheist'. Many fail to distinguish between belief and knowledge: I cannot demonstrate that gods do not exist, therefore I cannot know they don't exist, however, I don't believe owing to the fact that those who claim these entities exist have failed to fulfil the burden of proof, so I discount the claim as 'x' amount of nonsense borne of a more primitive time in the development of our species.

 

[soylentgreen]

I too employ the term 'agnostic atheist'. Many fail to distinguish between belief and knowledge: I cannot demonstrate that gods do not exist, therefore I cannot know they don't exist, however, I don't believe owing to the fact that those who claim these entities exist have failed to fulfil the burden of proof, so I discount the claim as 'x' amount of nonsense borne of a more primitive time in the development of our species.

Not being able to demonstrate that something does not exist is not a good reason to doubt that it might not exist. That residue of doubt you hold onto is is born from the same primitive fear of death that started these death cults.
A perosn can be an atheist or gnostic, not both at the same time. It is a bit like being aggressive passive, ie; I don't believe in god, maybe.

 

[btthegreat]

Not being able to demonstrate that something does not exist is not a good reason to doubt that it might not exist. That residue of doubt you hold onto is is born from the same primitive fear of death that started these death cults.
A perosn can be an atheist or gnostic, not both at the same time. It is a bit like being aggressive passive, ie; I don't believe in god, maybe.

Bullshit. You can take your faux psychobabble crap and put it in an orafice. The problem is with atheists who refuse to recognize the doubt. Any atheist who does not freely admit that he does not know whether God does or does not exist, is either stupid or arrogant. If you cannot prove there is no God, then you cannot know that there is no God, and therefore some doubt in such a premise is logical.

For some bizarre reason, it seems to offend your sensibilities that agnostic atheists willingly concede the obvious.

 

[soylentgreen]

Bullshit. The problem is with atheists who refuse to recognize the doubt. Any atheist who does not freely admit that he does not know whether God does or does not exist, is either stupid or arrogant. If you cannot prove there is no God, then you cannot know that there is no God, and therefore some doubt in such a premise is logical.

Why would I consider a god to be anything more than your imagination? To be treated with the same dismissal I would use if you were to suggest santa or the tooth fairy might just exist.
You are special pleading for a god without giving cause or reason as to why I would heed such pleading.
It is not a matter of whether I can prove what you can only conjure up in your own imagination. You still need to give me even just one good reason to bother with what you imagine.
All you have is the ability to spread doubt. But you cannot even give me a good reason to doubt.

 

[btthegreat]

Why would I consider a god to be anything more than your imagination? To be treated with the same dismissal I would use if you were to suggest santa or the tooth fairy might just exist.
You are special pleading for a god without giving cause or reason as to why I would heed such pleading.
It is not a matter of whether I can prove what you can only conjure up in your own imagination. You still need to give me even just one good reason to bother with what you imagine.
All you have is the ability to spread doubt. But you cannot even give me a good reason to doubt.

I did not ask you to consider it. I suppose you can be as dismissive as you choose, but you cannot do it logically. Unless you can prove that God does not exist, you cannot know that he does not exist. The only difference between me and you, is that I readily and openly concede that I cannot prove God does not exist, and that I cannot know if there is or is not one and I advertise that truth . There is no science on this topic, and no scientific test that precludes it.

There is nothing wrong with spreading doubt. It keeps us a little more humble about our opinions if we remain open to an opposite one.

 

[soylentgreen]

I did not ask you to consider it. I suppose you can be as dismissive as you choose, but you cannot do it logically. Unless you can prove that God does not exist, you cannot know that he does not exist. The only difference between me and you, is that I readily and openly concede that I cannot prove God does not exist, and that I cannot know if there is or is not one and I advertise that truth . There is no science on this topic, and no scientific test that precludes it.

Of course I can do it logically. The lack of logic is always on the side of those who laughably try and prove that a god is anything more than their own imagination.

I have been given no reason as to why I would assume a god in the first place. You on the other hand are starting from a position that a god might exist without giving even one good reason as to why. This is not dependent upon me to try and come up with a reason for there not being a god. This is depending entirely on you to demonstrate there is one. I do not have to prove there is no god any more than I must prove the existence of santa or any other imaginary creature.

 

[btthegreat]

Of course I can do it logically. The lack of logic is always on the side of those who laughably try and prove that a god is anything more than their own imagination.

I have been given no reason as to why I would assume a god in the first place. You on the other hand are starting from a position that a god might exist without giving even one good reason as to why. This is not dependent upon me to try and come up with a reason for there not being a god. This is depending entirely on you to demonstrate there is one. I do not have to prove there is no god any more than I must prove the existence of santa or any other imaginary creature.

No, I don't need to have or supply a reason to believe in something that I do not believe in. I know that the premise cannot be disproven,. I do not know if there is or is not a God and neither do you. I cannot know either way, and neither can you. Those are facts. If you want to pretend that you do know that God does not exist, for whatever peculiar reason, leave that 'agnostic' word off. My ego is not so fragile. I also don't think you are duty bound to advertise that you don't know whether there is or is not a God. You can try to keep it a secret.

 

[soylentgreen]

No, I don't need to have or supply a reason to believe in something that I do not believe in. I know that the premise cannot be disproven,. I do not know if there is or is not a God and neither do you. I cannot know either way, and neither can you. Those are facts. If you want to pretend that you do know that God does not exist, for whatever peculiar reason, leave that 'agnostic' word off. My ego is not so fragile. I also don't think you are duty bound to advertise that you don't know whether there is or is not a God. You can try to keep it a secret.

No, that is not true at all. There is no reason why I would consider god to be any more than any other imaginary creature. It is not a fact that I do not know whether a god exists or not. It is a fact that neither you nor anyone else has a good reason to consider a god to be any more than imagination.

If you do not need to supply a reason to believe in something that you do not believe in. Then at the very least you need to supply a reason as to why your even bothering to consider its existence. Would you do so for santa? Then why for god?

 

[btthegreat]

No, that is not true at all. There is no reason why I would consider god to be any more than any other imaginary creature. It is not a fact that I do not know whether a god exists or not. It is a fact that neither you nor anyone else has a good reason to consider a god to be any more than imagination.

If you do not need to supply a reason to believe in something that you do not believe in. Then at the very least you need to supply a reason as to why your even bothering to consider its existence. Would you do so for santa? Then why for god?

I do not need to supply a reason to believe in something that I do not believe in. We both agree here. I also do not need to supply you a reason to consider it. We both agree on that. I also do not need to supply you with a reason for me to consider it. I considered it because a lot of people personally have asked me to, and there is a cultural expectation where I live ( minimal but pervasive) that I consider it, so I did. I do not know if there is or is not a God. The premise cannot be proven or disproven so we cannot know either way. There is a word for that, and I use it. I do not believe and there is a word for that and I use that word to. Agnostic Atheist.

As for Santa, those who asked me to consider his existence, and to believe in him, have told me they lied about his existence and most of them are dead. There is no cultural expectation that I consider his existence anymore. You are literally the only person who is still asking me to consider a premise about the existence of Santa. For the record, I will concede readily that I cannot prove he does not exist. I don't know of any English word that describes someone who maintains that Santa's existence is unknowable or one that suggests a lack of belief in Santa. Maybe you should make one up if you want me label myself.

 

[soylentgreen]

I do not need to supply a reason to believe in something that I do not believe in. We both agree here. I also do not need to supply you a reason to consider it. We both agree on that. I also do not need to supply you with a reason for me to consider it. I considered it because a lot of people personally have asked me to, and there is a cultural expectation where I live ( minimal but pervasive) that I consider it, so I did. I do not know if there is or is not a God. The premise cannot be proven or disproven so we cannot know either way. There is a word for that, and I use it. I do not believe and there is a word for that and I use that word to. Agnostic Atheist.

As for Santa, those who asked me to consider his existence, and to believe in him, have told me they lied about his existence and most of them are dead. There is no cultural expectation that I consider his existence anymore. You are literally the only person who is still asking me to consider a premise about the existence of Santa. For the record, I will concede readily that I cannot prove he does not exist. I don't know of any English word that describes someone who maintains that Santa's existence is unknowable or one that suggests a lack of belief in Santa. Maybe you should make one up if you want me label myself.

And again you are demonstrating special pleading. Do you know if there is or is not a santa or a tooth fairy? Yet for some reason god cannot be treated as if it is just imagination.

And your answer appears to be a fallacy of ad populum. Just because many people consider a god is not a good reason to consider a god.

I do not need to make any words up. You need to demonstrate there is a good reason not to treat an imaginary friend as if it were not imaginary.

I doubt if I am literally the only one asking for proof of existence of santa. If you are bringing up a silly argument such as doubt might be a reason to say you do not know then that works for any imaginary fictional creature. Your argument that we cannot know therefor should have doubt means that because you do not know for sure what will be on the other side of a door when you open it then anything you imagine could be there.

Those who call themselves atheists yet still hold there is doubt as to whether a god exist are not atheists. they are agnostics. You need to come up with a good reason as to why I or anyone should have doubt about whether an imaginary creature exists otherwise your no better than a theist who demands god does exist but cannot do anything to convince anyone.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Not being able to demonstrate that something does not exist is not a good reason to doubt that it might not exist.

Exactly, it comes down to a point of logic.

That residue of doubt you hold onto is is born from the same primitive fear of death that started these death cults.

I have no doubt in my belief that gods don't exist, for no one can demonstrate that these beings exist (not to mention the problems in logic such a fantasy presents). My point is in the logic: I cannot demonstrate that gods do not exist, therefore I cannot know it to be the case, however, I don't believe so for the aforementioned reasons. One cannot 'know' that gods don't exist with certainty for that is an illogical position.

A perosn can be an atheist or gnostic, not both at the same time. It is a bit like being aggressive passive, ie; I don't believe in god, maybe.

Atheism is about 'belief', not 'knowledge', and we need to continually make this distinction, as so many conflate the two.

 

[soylentgreen]

Exactly, it comes down to a point of logic.



I have no doubt in my belief that gods don't exist, for no one can demonstrate that these beings exist (not to mention the problems in logic such a fantasy presents). My point is in the logic: I cannot demonstrate that gods do not exist, therefore I cannot know it to be the case, however, I don't believe so for the aforementioned reasons. One cannot 'know' that gods don't exist with certainty for that is an illogical position.



Atheism is about 'belief', not 'knowledge', and we need to continually make this distinction, as so many conflate the two.

The unfortunate thing about the argument of "We just do not know" giving us reason to doubt. Is that while pretending to be a question based on reason, it is in fact nothing more than an appeal to emotion fallacy. It relies on the fear of death and the unknown rather than ask a reasoned question.

There is no more reason to ask if we do not know about the existence of a god as there is reason to ask about any fictional character.