View Thread

Atheists Today » Religion » Islam
 Print Thread
Barbaric
JDHURF
Bob of QF wrote: You've swallowed into the "religion is nice" bullshit.


I haven
Edited by JDHURF on 11/30/2008 19:33
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img]
 
Sinny
I may be way off here with this example but I just want to get this clear in my own head.

I do understand that people aren't always responsible for the actions of others legally and sometimes morally/ethically. At the same time I do understand that participating in a group or member of a group that could change the circumstances and responsibility.

Ok lets say I join a cult, don't laugh I know it's an impossible thought, there are say 55 members and the cult leader orders his/her 5 right hand men to go into town and kill all the towns people. The other 50 weren't told about this so they had no idea it was going to happen. Are the other 50 members responsible legally or morally for the actions of the cult leader and the 5 right hand men who did the actual killing?

Now take the same scenario and let's say the other 50 members did know but no one did anything to stop it...call it due to brainwashing..fear or what ever reason but they didn't do anything to stop it. Are they then responsible legally or morally?

Now one more scenario. lets say there are other towns people who have the same beliefs as the cult members and they were spared from being killed by the 5 right hand men because they were of the same faith as the killers. Are they responsible for the actions and killings of their neighbors legally or morally? and should they be responsible to try and stop the other 50 members from blindly believing what was done was right simply because their cult leader says it was right due to their religious beliefs?

this is sort of what I'm thinking here. I do agree with JDHURF that not all are responsible... however, if those moderates are donating money to the cause then they are responsible for aiding the violence and cause. If they are simply of the same faith and live by the same book but don't do the same as the radicals or donate to their cause....then how could they be responsible?

Finally the only thing I see that the radicals and moderate muslims have in common is that they both believe in the same book/faith and they both choose which parts they will preach, they do the same thing the christians do...they cherry pick. Some see the peaceful side and some see the violent side. Though I must admit when it comes to the koran it's really just about all violence, killing. I have seen some videos on youtube where some preach that peace is the better way to convert one to their faith and violence/bombings/killing isn't the right way to convert people.
 
seeker
Bob of QF wrote:
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?


That's why I keep saying the religion is a symptom rather than a cause. When people are ignorant and oppressed they are easily led into religion, which the wealthy encourage because the the wealthy can use it to stay in control. Yelling about how bad this religion or that religion is futile because it doesn't do anything to educate the ones stuck in those religions out of them.

On the issue of moral responsibility you have to remember the size of the groups here. Christians include thousands of sects, many of them mutually exclusive. Catholics don't support polygamy but Mormons used to and both are Christian
Edited by seeker on 11/30/2008 19:58
 
willie
Just popped in to make sure there was a respectful amount of pining over my withdrawal. I would have liked to see more wailing and self-flagellation, but hey-ho. What I was surprised to see was that Neil had left.

Skeeve wrote
To lose a very dear member of this site because he was "required" to defend his opinion of a religion...pitiful.
Err... in my post directly before his I said I would go, so that he would no longer be "required" to defend his opinion (at least from me). I've played my part in arguing people off various Atheist.com incarnations before; normally theist, with no guilt, sometimes atheists, over various subjects, and normally with some degree of shame (in hindsight).

Seeing that coming with Neil, I decided to go instead. As Raven so eloquently put it, it was time to "STFU and leave Neil alone".

The suggestion that I should just ignore the issue, so we can all just get along, would have some merit if Neil hadn't kept prefacing new threads with the same silly point that people (me specifically) were arguing simply from misguided political correctness or fear of upsetting religion (4 or 5 posts in a row in the 'Amish' thread), as if the validity of his own opinions where beyond question, especially considering the refusal to defend those opinions. Plus, my daily life is full of guarding my opinions so as not to upset people, I come here to get away from that.

Anyhow, cut a long story short. There is no reason why Neil needed to leave. I'm happy to take a break. As fond as I am of the folks here, I am getting jaded with the whole Collective Atheism thing. It seems everywhere I look there is someone speaking on my 'atheist' behalf. Most of them I don't agree with.

I'll drop Neil an email, suggesting he return and reassuring him I won't be around to 'question' his opinions --he'll listen to me, deep down he knows I'm the voice of reason. Pfft

Cheers.

Bob, good luck with quoting sections of the koran to prove the immorality of anyone who uses the koran as a moral barometer. Interesting approach. Shock
 
Cynic
You don't need to go, Willie, though if you need a break, that's understandable.
 
seeker
Actually i think that you were very appropriate Willie. Neil has left before, and probably will again.
 
Hypatia
Willie - to me we are a community of like minded friends, in that many of us have come to know one another to at least some degree, to like and mostly respect one another even though we sometimes have differing viewpoints.

I hope I haven't, at least not too often, spoken on your atheist behalf. I only know you're a member I truly like and care about. I would miss having you in our midst terribly if you were to leave permanently, or be gone for very long. I understand if you choose to take a break, but I very much hope that's all it will be - a break, and just know that you'll be missed, and I for one will be hoping you'll be back.

With that said, I must say that I feel the same way about Neil. To have him gone from our group would feel as much like having lost an appendage as loosing Willie would. Neil is one of our members that I care about very much, and I'd miss him terribly if he were gone for good. I hope that after a break, perhaps, he'll return.

I miss them both now, and have been very saddened that anything has happened that would cause either, much less both of them to choose to leave.

Please come back soon guys.

 
catman
I stated in another thread that there is entirely too much of people getting bent out of shape and losing their cool and/or leaving. There is no need to for that. If someone on the site rubs someone the wrong way, all they have to do is ignore them. I'm doing that right now. I'm tired of all the feudin' and fightin', especially between people I like. Now we're even importing disputes from other sites. Can't we just agree to disagree once in a while? One of the great things about atheism is that there is no orthodoxy, or at least there shouldn't be.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Nails3Jesus0
Is this a case of "with no theists to debate, atheists start to eat their own?"
 
Bob of QF
Nails3Jesus0 wrote:
Is this a case of "with no theists to debate, atheists start to eat their own?"


Naaaah.

Some of us just like to argue.

(be careful of room 12A, that one's abuse. You want 12B, "ARGUMENTS" )
Edited by Bob of QF on 12/02/2008 23:01
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
catman
Room 12A is gaining in popularity!

It would almost be fun, after this much time without them, to have some theists to argue with. (I never thought I would say that.)
Edited by catman on 12/03/2008 16:30
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Bob of QF
catman wrote:
Room 12A is gaining in popularity!

It would almost be fun, after this much time without them, to have some theists to argue with. (I never thought I would say that.)


Yes on both points (that is, I agree).

It's why I routinely abuse myself over on Topix....

I think the anonymous nature of the internet often brings out the worst of the worst in people (myself not excluded ... *sigh* ).

Sometimes, I have to remind myself of that, and step back occasionally. Or in some cases, simply leave the thread altogether.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

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