PhoenixFlames wrote:Haha. As I listened it made me laugh a little because the guy trying a little too hard to convince Dawkins his point was valid. Very ironic. |
The Islam Thread.
•
Page 4
-
Moot_Point 5,530 posts
Seen 5 years ago
Registered 9 years ago -
Moot_Point 5,530 posts
Seen 5 years ago
Registered 9 years agoGraveland wrote:
Very well put, I agree. The thought of Islam trying to replace the declining religions in the west is a scary thought to me to be honest. (Scary as in a civil war as people ultimately reject religion as a form of mass control)
Islam is complete bollocks. The same can be said about Christianity. By moving away from the shackles of Christianity, Europe is arguably a better and more open and tolerable society. Religion didn't bring about these changes, it was the rejection of religion that brought enlightenment. -
Ziz0u 11,006 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 12 years agoPlease don't insult my art. -
Cadence 2,585 posts
Seen 5 minutes ago
Registered 16 years ago/looks at bedsheets
/sadface -
Moot_Point wrote:
Graveland wrote:
Very well put, I agree. The thought of Islam trying to replace the declining religions in the west is a scary thought to me to be honest. (Scary as in a civil war as people ultimately reject religion as a form of mass control)
Islam is complete bollocks. The same can be said about Christianity. By moving away from the shackles of Christianity, Europe is arguably a better and more open and tolerable society. Religion didn't bring about these changes, it was the rejection of religion that brought enlightenment.
It's simply not enough to break society into 'religious' or 'irreligious' and expect one to be evil and one good. Enlightenment/Romanticism might be a more useful division, as both can be religious/not religious, and even then, one isn't 'good' and one isn't 'bad'. Religious people can be scientists, and scientists can be religious, or not, or whatever.
Edited by RedSparrows at 16:53:59 17-02-2013
Edited by RedSparrows at 16:54:30 17-02-2013 -
EuroStalker wrote:
Sweeping generalisation tbh. It's possible to be a decent person with a sound moral compass with or without religion imo.
Religion has a purpose, to instil moral values. Humans are not born knowing what is good and bad. It is kind of a knowledge which is passed from parent to child, mainly through beliefs.
Without religion, human race would be no different from animals. It is people's beliefs throughout history which has lead to the ascent of man. Babylonians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Mayans, Egyptians, Romans, Chinese, Indians etc. all had belief systems which saw them develop and evolve.
Atheism is for simple minded, insular people. If left to Atheists, semen on bed sheets would be considered great art. -
Also, Eurostalker, whut. -
B0rked_Gamer wrote:
Of course you are allowed, in the sense of having the capacity and opportunity to do so, in social interaction.
RedSparrows wrote:
Why am I allowed? Why not? Just to be clear I don't go around asking people if they're religious and then tear then down but if they make a point of bringing up religion I give my opinion on the subject.
B0rked_Gamer wrote:
It is real for them. Why are you allowed to tell them it's not?i, with respect, doubt you are entirely rational about all aspects of life
MrTomFTW wrote:
It really isn't the same as enjoying Rock Band. Rock Band is real for one thing. I don't understand this it isn't real but they're happy with it argument. Why should I or indeed anyone be happy with so many people believing in utter nonsense?
B0rked_Gamer wrote:
And how is that your problem? Or Dawkin's problem. It's a bigger version of going up to people playing Rock Band and going "You're not really playing that, STOP HAVING FUN".
But they are absolutely wrong.
So what if you know it isn't real, they're happy with it.
.gif)
Philosophically speaking, however, you are unable to make that judgement with anything like a useful effect. You can pick up on problematic areas of belief - where it meets practice, for example - but you are simply not able to do any more. -
Maybe it was the two world wars that provoked the adoption of political solutions and the prolonged period of peace in western europe, not 'the rejection of religion' -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agoEuroStalker wrote:
Fixed for truth. Religion is a (sometimes substantial) part of any culture, but the latter shapes the former at least as much as the other way around (along with several other variables, like climate).
Culture has a purpose, to instil moral values. Humans are not born knowing what is good and bad. It is kind of a knowledge which is passed from parent to child, mainly through culture.
Without culture, human race would be no different from animals. It is people's culture throughout history which has lead to the ascent of man. Babylonians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Mayans, Egyptians, Romans, Chinese, Indians etc. all had cultural systems which saw them develop and evolve.
To think that religion is the sole (or even major) reason a society develops and evolves is... amusing. But wrong. Quite a lot, even. -
riceNpea 942 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 13 years ago -
CosmicFuzz 32,632 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoTo be fair, aside from the last paragraph he makes some fair points. I don't agree that without religion now we wouldn't be able to evolve. We've made great strides in the near past and I doubt all of the scientists etc were religious. -
CosmicFuzz 32,632 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoAnd I don't know if it's been said already, but the problem with Islam is that it's still directly tied to their laws. That's something we left behind in the crusades. -
disusedgenius 10,677 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 14 years agoSaying that religion helped culture to evolve puts the cart before the horse, for me. Seems more that organised religion is a product of culture evolving. -
Haven't the Chinese outlawed religion?
I think an ethical debate is the least of a fundamentalists worries for practice in the peoples republic. -
disusedgenius 10,677 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 14 years agoNo, they tried back in the Mao era. Didn't hold very well. -
cheers for the correction -
CosmicFuzz 32,632 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 15 years agodisusedgenius wrote:
I see what you're saying, and I probably agree with you, but wasn't some form of religion around before culture properly developed?
Saying that religion helped culture to evolve puts the cart before the horse, for me. Seems more that organised religion is a product of culture evolving.
Actually having typed that i'm not sure. What is culture anyway, and how do you define when it came about? And is religion as simple as believing in some greater power, as in why the sun rises etc? Because that form of religion must have been around for aaaaaaaages. -
Religion is a form of culture surely. -
Fake_Blood 11,093 posts
Seen 21 hours ago
Registered 12 years agoNo, culture develops over time.
Islam does not. -
disusedgenius 10,677 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 14 years agoInteresting, maybe it is the eternal truth then? -
BreadBinLidHero 10,801 posts
Seen 9 hours ago
Registered 12 years agoEuroStalker wrote:
The idea that morality cannot exist without religion is utter nonsense.
Religion has a purpose, to instil moral values. Humans are not born knowing what is good and bad. It is kind of a knowledge which is passed from parent to child, mainly through beliefs.
Without religion, human race would be no different from animals. It is people's beliefs throughout history which has lead to the ascent of man. Babylonians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Mayans, Egyptians, Romans, Chinese, Indians etc. all had belief systems which saw them develop and evolve.
Atheism is for simple minded, insular people. If left to Atheists, semen on bed sheets would be considered great art. -
Islam is proven to be malleable though; as societies have developed around it.
In Egypt, women used to be prominent and respected within society; now you have female lawyers giving up their careers to look after the children of builders. -
disusedgenius 10,677 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 14 years agoOh my, what a daring opinion you have. I simply must think of a stinging rebuttal. -
CosmicFuzz 32,632 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoI know, that's such a blinkered view EuroStalker. Surely religion should be teaching of acceptance of others and their beliefs, even if their belief is that there is no god? And what is your definition of a "survivor"? I know plenty of people who have got through tough times, some are religious, some are not. Your statements are very sweeping and show a very poor view of the world. -
OR you could just watch this video I saw on Reddit:
-
Are the atheists you know dead? Then they are survivors by default on a grand evolutionary scale.
Have you seen "Touching the Void", and the guy whose rope got cut off, bust his legs and managed to survive, yep, you know what's coming next. He is an atheist.
But thanks for your pet theory even if it doesn't add up to a hill of beans.
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
