View Thread

Atheists Today » Religion » Islam
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Barbaric
seeker
Even the group of 'humanity' Rayven?
 
JDHURF
RayvenAlandria wrote:
JDHURF wrote:
Bob of QF wrote:They are responsible. They all are.


Pure witchcraft. A person is responsible for his/her own actions, they are not and cannot be responsible for the actions of other people. The ideology you are now espousing is a supernatural one: voodoo.


You are so full of shit.

If you join a " I hate faggots" group, you support the ideology and ARE responsible for what that group does, especially with the funds you donate to it. Being in such a group makes a person a bigot.

You are responsible for any group you choose to be part of, whether it's religious, political or social in nature.


Wow, arenít you vitriolic today.

To begin with, Gnostic Christians are not in the same group as Evangelicals. They do not go to the same churches, they do not believe the same things and they are not the same group, clearly. Even further, being in the same group doesnít make one responsible for the actions of other people; that is supernatural voodoo.
When members of the SDS decided to bomb statues and the like, the only people responsible for the actions were those who participated; not the whole of the Students for a Democratic Society.

I agree that if someone is a member of a group that espouses bigotry, the members are bigots, but if one of the members decides to murder someone only that person is responsible for the murder. This is just an elementary legal principle.
Edited by JDHURF on 11/29/2008 19:55
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
RayvenAlandria
There is a huge difference between ONE person in your group committing murder and a sector of your group committing murders.

As for you SDS example, if I were a member of that group and they did such a thing I would decide whether to remain in that group by watching the rest of the group to see what they did. If they turned a blind eye and id not kick out the criminal element I would leave the group. Precisely how I waited and watched and then decided to leave TAM.

Seeker, the *group* of humanity is not a belief system. Nice try but it doesn't relate.
 
seeker
Actually it does Rayven. Most people are born into religions, they make no choice about joining. They grow with their religious beliefs so integrated into their thought processes that they really often know no other way to think.
 
JDHURF
RayvenAlandria wrote:
There is a huge difference between ONE person in your group committing murder and a sector of your group committing murders.

As for you SDS example, if I were a member of that group and they did such a thing I would decide whether to remain in that group by watching the rest of the group to see what they did. If they turned a blind eye and id not kick out the criminal element I would leave the group. Precisely how I waited and watched and then decided to leave TAM.


Here again is the conflation of groups. Wahhabism and Salafi Islam are clearly as different from the Progressive Muslim Union as Gnostic Christianity is to Evangelicalism. Even further, no matter how many people of a group commit a certain action, only those who participated are responsible. A human being is not responsible for the actions and crimes of others, thatís Christian doctrine Ė vicarious redemption Ė that the actions and crimes of others can be taken on by another person (Jesus).
Again, this is simply elementary legal principle. We can all agree that everyone who is a member of the KKK is a bigot, a racist and so on; yet when a member of the KKK murders someone, only that person is guilty of the crime, the state isn't going to throw the entire Klan into prison for murder. The klan member who sits at home and rants about African and Jewish Americans is a racist and a bigot, but if that is all he/she does, he/she is not a murderer, obviously.
The Klan is here a bad example because all Klan members are in agreement on hatred against minorities and so on, whereas with various religions there is no agreement on such issues. As Gnostic and Evangelical Christianity illustrates, as well as ultra-Orthodox and Reform Judaism as well as Wahhabism and the Progrssive Muslim Union.

It's a nice bit of irony that your argument against religion here is heavily borrowing from the moral ideology of Christianity itself.
Edited by JDHURF on 11/29/2008 20:30
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
RayvenAlandria
seeker wrote:
Actually it does Rayven. Most people are born into religions, they make no choice about joining. They grow with their religious beliefs so integrated into their thought processes that they really often know no other way to think.


Many of us grew up in very religious families and saw through the BS.

JD, I've stated my opinion and I could care less whether you agree with it. I'm not trying to force you to agree with me. You are free to think and feel any way you chose to. We are not going to agree so we might as well stop debating about this issue.

ETA; By the way, no one here stated that a person was legally responsible for the actions of another person. You're getting desperate and grasping at straws now. Might as well just give it up and accept the fact that people don't agree with you and are not going to. It's time to move on and talk about something else.
Edited by RayvenAlandria on 11/29/2008 22:36
 
seeker
RayvenAlandria wrote:
seeker wrote:
Actually it does Rayven. Most people are born into religions, they make no choice about joining. They grow with their religious beliefs so integrated into their thought processes that they really often know no other way to think.


Many of us grew up in very religious families and saw through the BS.



Rayven, folks like us are about 10% of the population. We are unique, the majority are what we have to deal with.
 
RayvenAlandria
seeker wrote:
RayvenAlandria wrote:
seeker wrote:
Actually it does Rayven. Most people are born into religions, they make no choice about joining. They grow with their religious beliefs so integrated into their thought processes that they really often know no other way to think.


Many of us grew up in very religious families and saw through the BS.



Rayven, folks like us are about 10% of the population. We are unique, the majority are what we have to deal with.


Yeah well, I can still resent them for not evolving. I may not treat them badly or with rudeness but deep down I think they are being irresponsible.
 
Sinny
Yeah but when they do speak up and decide it's all bullshit they have to leave their Country, learn a new language, learn how to survive all alone in a foreign Country and risk being killed before getting the chance to leave alive. I see how fearful I am and don't tell people I'm atheist because I don't want to lose my job. Imagine if I were threatened with my life or worse being beaten nearly to death or set on fire, etc. before being killed for not believing. Also brainwashing can last a life time when people have no where else to turn when they are scared, have problems, etc.

Other than Islam in say America they don't have their lives theratened but they do get constant reinforcement, friendships, social advantages when they stay in their religion. Example: My sister was sick and couldn't take care of our Mother, two disabled men and her husband had to work to help support them. It's not like he could call in sick at work since he runs his own business and has little help with meeting clients and so on. Anyway their church members brought them food, cooked enough meals for a week and made sure all were fed and well taken care of. Her husband made sure the men and our Mom got their meds. Without those church members they would have nearly starved and been left to fend for themselves when they were helpless to do that. This is one reason many people do join church and become religious....they make friends who help each other when they desperately need that help.. With church socialization there are more people to pitch in and help. They can't rsik evolving or thinking about what is true they think about who can and will help them and vice versa when they need it. They think about the rewards they are promised in another life and that is very tempting to people who live a shitty hard life. It takes days, weeks to get help from volunteers throught the State, Medicare. Not to mention all the bullshit red tape with guidelines for approval to get the help. But with what they call fellowship in a church they get help much faster and are willing to return the favor when they can, when needed. This is why I can't understand why they give the thanks to a god when it's the people who are helping each other not the god. They say to me they thank the god because if the god didn't exist they wouldn't have met each other in the church so it's the HS who gets the thanks while they do all the work because the HS is who/what got them (changed) them to do it. I can understand why/what makes them stay the way they are considering they aren't independent enough to survive on their own. Though no one can survive completely on their own and if more people were willing to help each other friends, family or not there would be less need for people to feel they need to turn to a god.

The brainwashing
The threats to their lives
The socializing
The help they get
The feeling of having a sense of belonging
All give them an excuse or reason to stay in it.
Edited by Sinny on 11/30/2008 13:31
 
seeker
RayvenAlandria wrote:
Yeah well, I can still resent them for not evolving. I may not treat them badly or with rudeness but deep down I think they are being irresponsible.


No argument from me on that. Sometimes, even though you are right, you lose more by proving the point than you gain.

I compare it to being at a dinner table with cannibals. Sure, you can proselytize against cannibalism but that may not be the best move for you at the time.
 
JDHURF
RayvenAlandria wrote: JD, I've stated my opinion and I could care less whether you agree with it. I'm not trying to force you to agree with me. You are free to think and feel any way you chose to. We are not going to agree so we might as well stop debating about this issue.


Thatís fine.

RayvenAlandria wrote: ETA; By the way, no one here stated that a person was legally responsible for the actions of another person. You're getting desperate and grasping at straws now. Might as well just give it up and accept the fact that people don't agree with you and are not going to. It's time to move on and talk about something else.


You have argued that all of the religious retain at least moral culpability for the crimes committed by others Ė which, as I pointed out, is a moral precept borrowed and then inverted from Christianity itself Ė and that these religious people are so culpable that they should actually be required to put an end to the crimes themselves (implying criminal responsibility, which then evokes criminal legal norms, of which your concepts would be in clear and direct opposition to).

You appear to want to heap moral and criminal responsibility of the actions of terrorists, criminals and so on onto the entire religious community, but that is clearly impermissible (morally itís the inversion of the Christian doctrine of vicarious redemption and criminally itís just pure nonsense).
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
Bob of QF
seeker wrote:
To an extent I'm with you on this one Bob but that only goes so far. The problem is that the focus on just the religious element obscures a lot of other factors that cause this underlying bad behavior. Face it, had we in the west not decided that we were entitled to the Middle East's resources we wouldn't have created a lot of the conditions that have caused the problems we are having these days. Our society's religious fanaticism is no different from theirs in any way except that we have a better military right now.

Have you ever read about 'manifest destiny'? The original colonists considereds themselves to be a 'New Israel' and justified the Genocide of native Americans because they viewed it as the same process as the bibles depictions of Isreal destroying the Caananites.

The same thinking went on in England when the Brits, with US help, plopped a bunch of Jews down in their holy land and then looked the other way while Jewish settlers committed a string of atrocities, as they continue to do. Its all irrational and the moderates keep backing the extremists on both sides.

What continues the conflict is not the extremists, its the people who keep looking at the extremists and blaming them while ignoring the causes. Wanna know the really fucked up part Bob? Oh come on, you know you want to.

The fucked up part is that the people who are continuing the conflict are the idiots who keep putting the same kinds of people into power over and over. Israel is run by hard liners who always consider force first. The Palestinians respond with the same kinds of leaders, who tacitly (on both sides) not only encourage extremists but use the fear those extremists generate to keep themselves in power. The thing that is fucked up Bob is that the people who keep those idiots in power are the uninformed, those people who see the articles in the papere and believe them, never once questioning why things never really seem to change.

That 'tacit acceptance of irrational behavior' is not just a theist thing, its a human thing


You have raised some very excellent points.

Especially with the ignorant fools putting hard-line leaders in power.

Here in the US, we see that time and time again: fundigelicals are typically among the poor or lower income classes. Yet, time and time again, they vote into power, those who's interests lie with the very, very rich, and continue to give more power and privilege to the very, very rich as result.

Yet these uninformed fundigelicals continue to vote against their own economic interests.

*sigh*

It boils down to education, again.

When does it not?
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Bob of QF
RayvenAlandria wrote:
JDHURF wrote:
Bob of QF wrote:They are responsible. They all are.


Pure witchcraft. A person is responsible for his/her own actions, they are not and cannot be responsible for the actions of other people. The ideology you are now espousing is a supernatural one: voodoo.


You are so full of shit.

If you join a " I hate faggots" group, you support the ideology and ARE responsible for what that group does, especially with the funds you donate to it. Being in such a group makes a person a bigot.

You are responsible for any group you choose to be part of, whether it's religious, political or social in nature.


I can only imagine what tiny nit-pick "point" he will raise for THIS post.

<eyeroll>

Nice analogy, Rayven!
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
JDHURF
Bob of QF wrote:
RayvenAlandria wrote:
JDHURF wrote:
Bob of QF wrote:They are responsible. They all are.


Pure witchcraft. A person is responsible for his/her own actions, they are not and cannot be responsible for the actions of other people. The ideology you are now espousing is a supernatural one: voodoo.


You are so full of shit.

If you join a " I hate faggots" group, you support the ideology and ARE responsible for what that group does, especially with the funds you donate to it. Being in such a group makes a person a bigot.

You are responsible for any group you choose to be part of, whether it's religious, political or social in nature.


I can only imagine what tiny nit-pick "point" he will raise for THIS post.

<eyeroll>

Nice analogy, Rayven!


Are you serious? I responded to that several posts ago. It was a fallacious analogy, as I demonstrated. Your eyerolling notwithstanding.
Edited by JDHURF on 11/30/2008 18:00
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
Bob of QF
JDHURF wrote:
RayvenAlandria wrote: JD, I've stated my opinion and I could care less whether you agree with it. I'm not trying to force you to agree with me. You are free to think and feel any way you chose to. We are not going to agree so we might as well stop debating about this issue.


Thatís fine.

RayvenAlandria wrote: ETA; By the way, no one here stated that a person was legally responsible for the actions of another person. You're getting desperate and grasping at straws now. Might as well just give it up and accept the fact that people don't agree with you and are not going to. It's time to move on and talk about something else.


You have argued that all of the religious retain at least moral culpability for the crimes committed by others Ė which, as I pointed out, is a moral precept borrowed and then inverted from Christianity itself Ė and that these religious people are so culpable that they should actually be required to put an end to the crimes themselves (implying criminal responsibility, which then evokes criminal legal norms, of which your concepts would be in clear and direct opposition to).

You appear to want to heap moral and criminal responsibility of the actions of terrorists, criminals and so on onto the entire religious community, but that is clearly impermissible (morally itís the inversion of the Christian doctrine of vicarious redemption and criminally itís just pure nonsense).


Actually, I DO think that as long as they are promoting a book, which leads some people to violent behavior, they ARE ethically responsible.

You state, "that's just pure nonsense". I disagree. If it was, I would see your point, but I don't agree with it.

That it will EVER turn out that these people, who are ethically responsible for their book, will ever be held accountable?

Unlikely, for religion in the world, has been granted a special "by".

Even the very latest United Nations resolution, which seems to prohibit even criticism of any religion, indicates that the world will continue to give religion a "by".

Just because it is religion.

http://scienceblo...religi.php

And you've bought into the mythos hook, line and sinker, it seems. YOU seem quite willing to let the members of the groups off the hook, even though the root-cause of the violence traces back to the same bankrupt-book.

Legally? Won't happen, because of the special status that ALL religions seem to be under. (except for the "religion" of atheism, of course...<eyeroll> )

Remember Pat Robertson? He, in public, on the air, advocated violence! He actually called for the death of an entire town, because a court decision went in favor of science, and not religion (Dover, PA).

Was he arrested for calling for the deaths of an entire town? No! Was he censured? Did he loose his job? No! The worst? A few mamby-pamby words. Some speeches critical of his attitude. And nothing more than that!

Because religion gets a "by".

Had Robertson called for the death of all black people? He would have (rightly) been off the air so fast.....

....but so long as he sticks to "religious opinion" he gets away with it.

And THAT IS my main beef: the moderates get off scott free, when they are morally and ethically responsible; it's the same book.
Edited by Bob of QF on 11/30/2008 18:02
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Bob of QF
JDHURF wrote:

Are you serious? I responded to that several posts ago. It was a fallacious analogy, as I demonstrated. Your eyerolling notwithstanding.


I read your "response".

It was a dodge, a nit-pick.

You completely missed the main point; you used a red-herring as your "argument".

Your use of a tiny fraction of the whole that is "christianity" as an example misses the main thrust:

The majority of christians should be held accountable for the violent actions carried out in the name of their religion.


This is even more apt, when speaking of Muslims: for the Koran is even more violent in it's precepts than the bible is.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
JDHURF
Bob of QF wrote: Actually, I DO think that as long as they are promoting a book, which leads some people to violent behavior, they ARE ethically responsible.

You state, "that's just pure nonsense". I disagree. It it was, I would see your point, but I don't agree with it.

That it will EVER turn out that these people, who are ethically responsible for their book, will ever be held accountable?


Thereís clearly a difference between promoting a book and murdering someone. The law understands the difference as well as the overwhelming majority of bioethicists alive today. That you donít is simply unfortunate.

Bob of QF wrote: Unlikely, for religion in the world, has been granted a special "by".


I am not granting anyone or anything a ďby.Ē I simply pointing out the obvious, that people are only responsible for their actions, they are not responsible for the actions of others: thatís inverted Christian dogma your spouting.

Bob of QF wrote: And you've bought into the mythos hook, line and sinker, it seems. YOU seem quite willing to let the members of the groups off the hook, even though the root-cause of the violence traces back to the same bankrupt-book.


You are here again simply arguing the religious fanatic argument for them. There are religious sects which justify through the very same book complete passive nonviolence, but you are only willing to credit the book with motivating violence by agreeing with the religious fanatics that they are correct in their interpretation and that the peaceful followers are wrong.

Even further, you are still unwell to recognize that people can only be responsible for their own actions. You want to preach voodoo, thatís fine with me, but it turns you into a hypocrite.

Bob of QF wrote: Remember Pat Robertson? He, in public, on the air, advocated violence! He actually called for the death of an entire town, because a court decision went in favor of science, and not religion (Dover, PA).


Robertson has also called for political assassinations and so on, but he is responsible for what he said, not the entire religious community. That is just stunningly obvious and nontrivial.

Bob of QF wrote: And THAT IS my main beef: the moderates get off scott free, when they are morally and ethically responsible; it's the same book.


Many Christians who disagree with Robertson quote, say, the sermon on the mount which would clearly oppose precisely that which Robertson preaches. The problem is that you have decided to become the arbiter here and agree with and defend Robertsonís interpretation. You are arguing the religious fanatic argument for them. You should really stop doing that.
Furthermore, it wasnít the moderates who advocated mass murder, it was Robertson. You simply have no moral or legal sense. Robertson is responsible for what he says, not the entire billions of Christians who populate the Earth.

You, like Rayvn want to heap moral and criminal responsibility of the actions of terrorists, criminals and so on onto the entire religious community, but that is clearly impermissible (morally itís the inversion of the Christian doctrine of vicarious redemption and criminally itís just pure nonsense).
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
JDHURF
Bob of QF wrote:Your use of a tiny fraction of the whole that is "christianity" as an example misses the main thrust:

The majority of christians should be held accountable for the violent actions carried out in the name of their religion.



You have it completely backwards. The majority of Christians donít murder people and donít advocate murder. You are the one who is picking out a tiny fraction of the whole and agreeing with their interpretation over others for no reason other than that you clearly hate with a fevered passion all of religion.

You are also still having trouble with elementary moral and legal principles. People are only responsible for their own actions, they are not responsible for the actions of others (I am honestly shocked that I have to repeat this).

When a Klan member murders someone, that Klan member is punished for his/her crime, not the entire Klan (even though the entire Klan would agree with the hate of the murderer, whereas not all religious people agree with the hatred that motivates terrorism and so on).
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
Bob of QF
JDHURF wrote:
Bob of QF wrote:Your use of a tiny fraction of the whole that is "christianity" as an example misses the main thrust:

The majority of christians should be held accountable for the violent actions carried out in the name of their religion.



You have it completely backwards. The majority of Christians donít murder people and donít advocate murder. You are the one who is picking out a tiny fraction of the whole and agreeing with their interpretation over others for no reason other than that you clearly hate with a fevered passion all of religion.

You are also still having trouble with elementary moral and legal principles. People are only responsible for their own actions, they are not responsible for the actions of others (I am honestly shocked that I have to repeat this).

When a Klan member murders someone, that Klan member is punished for his/her crime, not the entire Klan (even though the entire Klan would agree with the hate of the murderer, whereas not all religious people agree with the hatred that motivates terrorism and so on).


You keep repeating it as if it means something.

It doesn't.

You've swallowed into the "religion is nice" bullshit. You've also jumped on the "give religion a special non-critical status; it may do and say literally anything, and must not be criticized, ever" bandwagon.

I suppose since that attitude has been washed into your brain since you were young, and you've failed to overcome your child-hood brainwashing, this should not be surprising.

I'm saying that the entire group, morally, must be held responsible for the actions of what that group pushes forward.

You keep saying that these groups are separate; that IS the problem!

The moderates are given a "by" when members of their group act violently, on their say-so.

ALL religion is irrational.

All religion ultimately leads to violence. Even the so-called "pacifistic" versions eventually devolve into violence; indeed, christianity started out as communist/pacifist and look how quickly it devolved into murder, torture and worse.

If the moderates are not called on the issue, the violence just continues.

......

And, actually, you're wrong (again, hardly surprising) about the KKK.

If a clansman commits murder, at the behest of his group? The whole group can (and often is) tried. If the group members do nothing to prohibit the murder? Then they are complicit in the murder as accessories!

I'm surprised you apparently don't know this!

Wait: no I'm not. Your ignorance, and continued willingness to accept that "religion has special status in society, cannot be criticized EVER" attitude shows that you could not have possibly considered that the other KKK members are an accessory.

And that is the point: that the moderates do nothing to prevent the violence committed by members of their same group? (nevermind the trivial details; they are the same group outside of christianity)

They are accessories to the violence, by association. And by stint of failing to act.

That is one of the consequences of belief in the irrational.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Bob of QF
JDHURF wrote:
You have it completely backwards. The majority of Christians donít murder people and donít advocate murder.


So?

Do they believe in the bible? Do they think the bible is a magical book of the words of god?

Then they are irrational.

Then they are in the same group as the violent members, and therefore responsible for the actions of those members.

By stint of doing nothing at all to prohibit the violence, they become accessories.

For it is the very book that they uphold as magical, unquestioned "word of god" that is the tie that makes them responsible.

Does not matter, that they interpret it differently, they are in the same group, from the outside looking in.

The book they uphold is violent in nature; hateful in nature.

And everything above, applies in triple, to Muslims and the Koran. For the Koran actively does exhort it's members to violent acts.

This makes anyone who supports the distribution and promotes the Koran as the magical word of god, responsible for any violence it encourages.

Why is this so hard for you to see?

Oh! I keep forgetting: you are a member of the "give all religion special un-criticized status in society" group....

I bet you thought the UN resolution was fantastic....

http://scienceblo...religi.php
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Jump to Forum: