The Politics Thread

[PleaseNotPoll]

You've lost me. It isn't relevant to what? To religion? If so, I addressed this to SD. If I believe religions (generally) promote humility, being humble, helping one another, charity, ethics of disagreement/respect, you can't say to me that it's besides the point.

I was pointing to religious people doing important work to dispel the myth that certain religions hinder the progression of society. If said religions did hinder the progression of society, these individuals wouldn't be following their religion and we wouldn't be reaping the benefits of their knowledge and research.

In regards to crime, I suppose it depends on how you define it. A lot of people may see war as crime. But war can be necessary. As with most things, context is very important. Some of the conquests carried out by alleged muslims have no religious backing such as Muhammad Ahmad (the self-proclaimed Mahdi who most Islamic scholars dismissed because of his ludicrous claims) . The point is that they're not just using their faith to justify the way they act, they are using anything to justify the way they act.

It's irrelevant to the truth of the matter.
You've given examples of people doing good things in the name of religion, but want to ignore those doing bad things for the same reasons.
This makes no sense.

Attempting to suggest that we've reached this point because of religion is similarly flawed.
We have no way of knowing where we'd be without it.
I've no idea why you think that people would reject religion if it held back progress, either.
They often had absolutely no choice in the matter, frankly.

It depends on how you define an extremist. Do you believe that all extremists have to carry out acts of violence? Or are those that merely advocate it just as complicit in this? If its the latter, Dawkins and Harris fit this criteria. Sam Harris has spoken about a nuclear strike on the Muslim world in his book. I find it incredible that you keep defending the man, frankly.

When has Dawkins advocated acts of violence?
I've not read Harris' books, so I've no idea if he has, but you've yet to back up any claims about him that you've made.
What did he say about a nuclear strike in his book?

The root causes of the entire Middle East conflict is down to the USA, UK and France. A major reason why Political Islam hasn't properly solved the conflict in the Middle East have either been due to military coups taking over or due to despotic regimes remaining having been backed by western states.

Does it not say something that these people still believe in Political Islam even in spite of the immense suffering they've witnessed and experienced for decades?

The conflict in the Middle East has been going on for millenia.

The idea of people supporting Political Islam in spite of their suffering making it somehow true is ludicrous.
The fact that dissenters are often killed puts paid to it, for a start.
Imperialism must've been great for the world, too.

 

[Spurf]

You've lost me. It isn't relevant to what? To religion? If so, I addressed this to SD. If I believe religions (generally) promote humility, being humble, helping one another, charity, ethics of disagreement/respect, you can't say to me that it's besides the point.

I was pointing to religious people doing important work to dispel the myth that certain religions hinder the progression of society. If said religions did hinder the progression of society, these individuals wouldn't be following their religion and we wouldn't be reaping the benefits of their knowledge and research.

In regards to crime, I suppose it depends on how you define it. A lot of people may see war as crime. But war can be necessary. As with most things, context is very important. Some of the conquests carried out by alleged muslims have no religious backing such as Muhammad Ahmad (the self-proclaimed Mahdi who most Islamic scholars dismissed because of his ludicrous claims) . The point is that they're not just using their faith to justify the way they act, they are using anything to justify the way they act.




It depends on how you define an extremist. Do you believe that all extremists have to carry out acts of violence? Or are those that merely advocate it just as complicit in this? If its the latter, Dawkins and Harris fit this criteria. Sam Harris has spoken about a nuclear strike on the Muslim world in his book. I find it incredible that you keep defending the man, frankly.




The root causes of the entire Middle East conflict is down to the USA, UK and France. A major reason why Political Islam hasn't properly solved the conflict in the Middle East have either been due to military coups taking over or due to despotic regimes remaining having been backed by western states.

Does it not say something that these people still believe in Political Islam even in spite of the immense suffering they've witnessed and experienced for decades?

You are missing the point the USA and the UK are promoting their christian position you seem to be running away with idea the we are just attacking Muslims. Not at all the Christians have caused far more damage because they have become more powerful.
{Does it not say something that these people still believe in Political Islam even in spite of the immense suffering they've witnessed and experienced for decades?}

Indeed it does, it is testimony to the lack of clear free thinking that most human beings struggle with mainly due to the malignant influence of religion which discourages free thought. Why else would people subscribe to something that so clearly puts them at an extreme disadvantage. Because as we all know when they die everything will be lovely in their heaven. Yeah right!

 

[BrunelGooner]

It's irrelevant to the truth of the matter.
You've given examples of people doing good things in the name of religion, but want to ignore those doing bad things for the same reasons.
This makes no sense.

I'm sorry, but this is swings and roundabouts. I'm not speaking on behalf of all religions, just my own. I don't agree that the religion I follow has promoted and endorsed the type of violence and social problems that you and others have suggested in this thread. Also, I'm not saying that a religious individual that tries to do good things is doing it in the name of their religion; I'm saying that their religion doesn't obstruct them from discovering new things. That doesn't necessarily mean they're doing it for the sake of their religion. Neither am I 'ignoring' individuals who do bad things in the name of religion, either. I am saying that someone claiming to blow someone up or to commit mass genocide in the name of a faith doesn't mean that particular faith promotes that pattern of behaviour. You, for some bizarre reason, seem to think otherwise.

So do you think ISIS are an 'Islamic State' just because they say they are?

I've no idea why you think that people would reject religion if it held back progress, either.
They often had absolutely no choice in the matter, frankly.

Most people affiliated to a religion would say that forcing people to be a Muslim/Christian/Jew/whatever is wrong and immoral. You won't find many (sane) people who believe that others should be forced to believe a particular thing.

When has Dawkins advocated acts of violence?

He makes disingenuous arguments and misinformed comments such as ISIS being Islam (https://richarddawkins.net/2015/04/isis-is-islam/ - his website), claiming 'to hell with Islamic culture', (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/61...y-blast-at-Muslims-To-hell-with-their-culture) and if you have Twitter, you can see the plethora of fallacious statements he makes. His views on topics within Islam, such as apostasy, female clothing, FGM and human rights are wrong and it clearly shows he has a lack of education in the matter. Has he actually engaged with a proper Islamic scholars? Someone like Yasir Qadhi or Nouman Ali Khan? If he engages with nut jobs, of course it will make him look better. But don't give airtime to nutters then.

I've not read Harris' books, so I've no idea if he has, but you've yet to back up any claims about him that you've made.

The funding for Quilliam and his views on Islam in one sentence:

https://medium.com/insurge-intellig...tigated-by-sam-harris-1e43d54f0bee#.flfvi8608

"In 2014, ‘New Atheist’ icon Sam Harris donated $20,000 to the Quilliam Foundation. Harris has advocated “war with Islam,” including defending regime change in Iraq, advocating torture, and promoting mass profiling of Muslims “or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim.”

The fact that you don't see him as part of the problem is telling. Genuinely, I don't know if you're jumping to both Harris's and Dawkins' defence because they believe the same things as you, but he clearly hasn't made life easier for religious people when he's been given a public platform to spew hatred.

What did he say about a nuclear strike in his book?

http://www.alternet.org/story/80449/the_dangerous_atheism_of_christopher_hitchens_and_sam_harris

The conflict in the Middle East has been going on for millennia.

Exacerbated significantly by western governments, including the British Empire and France.
To deny this is to deny history.

The idea of people supporting Political Islam in spite of their suffering making it somehow true is ludicrous.
The fact that dissenters are often killed puts paid to it, for a start.

This simply isn't true.

 

[Spurf]

I'm sorry, but this is swings and roundabouts. I'm not speaking on behalf of all religions, just my own. I don't agree that the religion I follow has promoted and endorsed the type of violence and social problems that you and others have suggested in this thread. Also, I'm not saying that a religious individual that tries to do good things is doing it in the name of their religion; I'm saying that their religion doesn't obstruct them from discovering new things. That doesn't necessarily mean they're doing it for the sake of their religion. Neither am I 'ignoring' individuals who do bad things in the name of religion, either. I am saying that someone claiming to blow someone up or to commit mass genocide in the name of a faith doesn't mean that particular faith promotes that pattern of behaviour. You, for some bizarre reason, seem to think otherwise.

So do you think ISIS are an 'Islamic State' just because they say they are?



Most people affiliated to a religion would say that forcing people to be a Muslim/Christian/Jew/whatever is wrong and immoral. You won't find many (sane) people who believe that others should be forced to believe a particular thing.



He makes disingenuous arguments and misinformed comments such as ISIS being Islam (https://richarddawkins.net/2015/04/isis-is-islam/ - his website), claiming 'to hell with Islamic culture', (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/61...y-blast-at-Muslims-To-hell-with-their-culture) and if you have Twitter, you can see the plethora of fallacious statements he makes. His views on topics within Islam, such as apostasy, female clothing, FGM and human rights are wrong and it clearly shows he has a lack of education in the matter. Has he actually engaged with a proper Islamic scholars? Someone like Yasir Qadhi or Nouman Ali Khan? If he engages with nut jobs, of course it will make him look better. But don't give airtime to nutters then.



The funding for Quilliam and his views on Islam in one sentence:

https://medium.com/insurge-intellig...tigated-by-sam-harris-1e43d54f0bee#.flfvi8608

"In 2014, ‘New Atheist’ icon Sam Harris donated $20,000 to the Quilliam Foundation. Harris has advocated “war with Islam,” including defending regime change in Iraq, advocating torture, and promoting mass profiling of Muslims “or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim.”

The fact that you don't see him as part of the problem is telling. Genuinely, I don't know if you're jumping to both Harris's and Dawkins' defence because they believe the same things as you, but he clearly hasn't made life easier for religious people when he's been given a public platform to spew hatred.




http://www.alternet.org/story/80449/the_dangerous_atheism_of_christopher_hitchens_and_sam_harris



Exacerbated significantly by western governments, including the British Empire and France.
To deny this is to deny history.



This simply isn't true.

Brunel you are obviously a decent person and I maybe suggest that you consider not engaging in this thread if you are offended by Dawkins. The pieces you highlight are precisely the kind of criticism many free thinking people would agree with. eg Advocating oppression of women is rejected by all enlightened people. You don't see that teaching children in certain ways about religion is in fact brainwashing, Some religions encourage learning by rote and and chanting this in effect forces people to confirm if it did not we would find different religions spread evenly across the globe, What we in fact find is what you would expect from the particular countries involved. Their indigenous population tends to follow the faith that is prevalent in that country.
Same with politics depending on where you live in the world has a great bearing on your political view. This is not chance this is simply down to parents and education making sure their own particular views are continued.

If any of these doctrines are worth anything they would be quite happy to let society find out for itself in an open and comparative way about such doctrines; they do not.. In the UK there has been a long struggle by women to achieve equality and this battle still goes on; to allow religion to put this back is hopefully not going to happen. The same can be said of certain minorities who have fought long and hard for freedom. Various religions have opposed this and still do. People who have not been indoctrinated will oppose these religious efforts to impose their beliefs on others.

 

[BrunelGooner]

@Spurf

Whether I find Dawkins offensive or not, I wouldn't say that he doesn't have the right to say the things that he does. My faith teaches that ethics of disagreement is very important. So I don't accept the idea that most religious people want to impose their beliefs on others. Sure, some do, but the large majority just want to get on with their daily lives and practice what they believe in. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. If it gives them a sense of security and encourages them to become a better person, with all due respect, who are you to say otherwise?

Teaching children religion is important because, irrespective of whether it is viewed as good or bad, it has still shaped history. You could just as easily say that teaching children religion is arbitrary and unnecessary would shape their worldview in a way that views religious people with cynicism. Or that teaching them about the absence of belief is a form indoctrination that all religious beliefs are ridiculous. That may well be your opinion, but it doesn't mean everyone else follows the same thought process. It's not about indoctrinating children, it's about bringing them up to be the best people they can be. If adults feel like religion is the best way to facilitate that, then again, who are you to say differently? Free thought is encouraged, contrary to what you may think. In fact, Islamically, it is an obligation to find out more about your faith (rather than following it just because your parents did). I've not claimed that other religions haven't denied gender rights or that they haven't been anathema to freedoms of minority groups; after all, I'm not defending or speaking on behalf of all religions, just my own.

 

[Spurf]

@Spurf

Whether I find Dawkins offensive or not, I wouldn't say that he doesn't have the right to say the things that he does. My faith teaches that ethics of disagreement is very important. So I don't accept the idea that most religious people want to impose their beliefs on others. Sure, some do, but the large majority just want to get on with their daily lives and practice what they believe in. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. If it gives them a sense of security and encourages them to become a better person, with all due respect, who are you to say otherwise?

Teaching children religion is important because, irrespective of whether it is viewed as good or bad, it has still shaped history. You could just as easily say that teaching children religion is arbitrary and unnecessary would shape their worldview in a way that views religious people with cynicism. Or that teaching them about the absence of belief is a form indoctrination that all religious beliefs are ridiculous. That may well be your opinion, but it doesn't mean everyone else follows the same thought process. It's not about indoctrinating children, it's about bringing them up to be the best people they can be. If adults feel like religion is the best way to facilitate that, then again, who are you to say differently? Free thought is encouraged, contrary to what you may think. In fact, Islamically, it is an obligation to find out more about your faith (rather than following it just because your parents did). I've not claimed that other religions haven't denied gender rights or that they haven't been anathema to freedoms of minority groups; after all, I'm not defending or speaking on behalf of all religions, just my own.

@BrunelGooner
[ I don't accept the idea that most religious people want to impose their beliefs on others.]

I agree, most religious people do not want to impose their beliefs on others, but most want others in their religion to do it for them. That's why they attend their various centres to be taught by their respective elders.
I am not advocating teaching children socialism or capitalism or Marxism or any other ism. Beliefs are best considered by adults who have had the chance to find out something about the world before someone else tries to IMPOSE their own views upon them.

Example: When I was a young boy I asked my father "Dad do you believe in God?" He advised me to find out all I could about it and make up my own mind. My school on the other hand was doing it's best to inform me that The Wonderful British Empire brought Christianity to the World and would I like to march around the playground on 'Empire Day' with a union jack. (Yes i'm quite old) I survived with my free thinking in tact as many people do. I have met many people who have been brought as Catholics who have rejected the doctrines as adults. So people do cope with religions attempted indoctrination but why should people have to suffer all of this because other people decide what's best for them.

[It's not about indoctrinating children, it's about bringing them up to be the best people they can be. If adults feel like religion is the best way to facilitate that, then again, who are you to say differently?]

Or! who are you to decide that Islam is best or someone else that Christianity is best and then teach that to people who rely upon you for their health and well being. Sorry I find your position arrogant and damaging.
Remember I am not trying to impose anything on children, you are doing that, so asking me the question ;{whom am I to say?} is rather disingenuous. Do I think people should stop imposing their own views on others? Yes I do.

I have taken the trouble to investigate most of the major religions and their beliefs. Most of the original doctrines are good and wise and, I'm pretty sure, if followed by individuals would make the world a much better place. Unfortunately these original doctrines have been corrupted for reasons of power and wealth by the established orthodoxy of organised religion. Much of Christianity has been adapted from so called heathen practice, for example, Xmas and Easter have both been effectively stolen by the Christian church . This is standard practice for conquerors to steal the clothes of their victims.

We are now in the 21st Century and science (the current religion) has exposed most of the religious claims as arrant nonsense, which is why countries with effective modern education systems are becoming more and more secular.

If you want to run your life on the basis of fairy-tales from thousands of years ago that's entirely up to you but you should really think carefully before you impose ONE set of beliefs on another person 'for the best' If your religion is so good then it will stand up to scrutiny and there should be no need to hide exposure to alternatives by selectively teaching only the one doctrine.

 

[NSIS]

This is getting monotonous. Give the kids the argument from both sides and let them form their own opinions.

We can only affect what happens on our own little part of the world. We've tried telling others what's good for them, and look where that's got us!

My opinion remains the same. Attempting to ban religion either nationally, or globally, is a ridiculous conception doomed to abject failure.

 

[The Huddlefro]

Ultimately religion (or any other set of beliefs, whether it is supporting a football team or a steadfast support of a political view) is only harmful where the belief in it supersedes one's ability to get along with others who believe differently.

 

[Spurf]

This is getting monotonous. Give the kids the argument from both sides and let them form their own opinions.

We can only affect what happens on our own little part of the world. We've tried telling others what's good for them, and look where that's got us!

My opinion remains the same. Attempting to ban religion either nationally, or globally, is a ridiculous conception doomed to abject failure.

It can't be that monotonous as you clearly haven't read it I don't think anybody has said religion should be banned. Anyway why read it and comment if you find it boring NSIS

I think this thread will die a natural death soon anyway.

 

[Spurf]

Ultimately religion (or any other set of beliefs, whether it is supporting a football team or a steadfast support of a political view) is only harmful where the belief in it supersedes one's ability to get along with others who believe differently.

And?

 

[NSIS]

It can't be that monotonous as you clearly haven't read it I don't think anybody has said religion should be banned. Anyway why read it and comment if you find it boring NSIS

I think this thread will die a natural death soon anyway.

I do believe that was your original idea?

And no, you're right, I couldn't really be arsed to read pages and pages of tit for tat.

You won't get rid of religion anymore than you'll get rid of war. Maybe one day, but none of us will live to see it!

 

[The Huddlefro]

If you want to run your life on the basis of fairy-tales from thousands of years ago that's entirely up to you but you should really think carefully before you impose ONE set of beliefs on another person 'for the best' If your religion is so good then it will stand up to scrutiny and there should be no need to hide exposure to alternatives by selectively teaching only the one doctrine.

I was agreeing with your quote here. Some things stand up to scrutiny and some don't. Some religious people utterly reject "The Big Bang" or other scientifically proven aspects of the world we live in, but others build it into a story where the start of the world was some sort of "intelligent design"

Ultimately imposition of a set of beliefs is wrong, especially when so many share a comparable set of morals.

 

[NSIS]

I was agreeing with your quote here. Some things stand up to scrutiny and some don't. Some religious people utterly reject "The Big Bang" or other scientifically proven aspects of the world we live in, but others build it into a story where the start of the world was some sort of "intelligent design"

Ultimately imposition of a set of beliefs is wrong, especially when so many share a comparable set of morals.

Exactly. Trying to impose a set of beliefs, or disbeliefs, is futile.

 

[Spurf]

Exactly. Trying to impose a set of beliefs, or disbeliefs, is futile.

NSIS how do you square that with the millions who have a set of beliefs that HAVE been imposed upon them?

You just can't resist can you

 

[Spurf]

I do believe that was your original idea?

And no, you're right, I couldn't really be arsed to read pages and pages of tit for tat.

You won't get rid of religion anymore than you'll get rid of war. Maybe one day, but none of us will live to see it!

No it wasn't and I have checked back to see if I might have said it. I didn't.

 

[NSIS]

NSIS how do you square that with the millions who have a set of beliefs that HAVE been imposed upon them?

You just can't resist can you

There is no imposition of beliefs where I live, nor I believe where you do. We can only affect our immediate environment, for now anyway.

There are many places in the world where freedom of choice, religious or otherwise, is restricted. We can try to persuade, but ultimately, that's all we can do!

 

[Spurf]

There is no imposition of beliefs where I live, nor I believe where you do. We can only affect our immediate environment, for now anyway.

There are many places in the world where freedom of choice, religious or otherwise, is restricted. We can try to persuade, but ultimately, that's all we can do!

You have to be joking NSIS you live in a catholic country or didn't you notice

 

[NSIS]

You have to be joking NSIS you live in a catholic country or didn't you notice

You obviously know nothing about where I live, or you wouldn't make such ridiculous claims!

What exactly is your definition of imposition? Because I see none of it here! I know these people, I speak their language, nobody I know is imposed upon in a religious way, or otherwise.

 

[Spurf]

You obviously know nothing about where I live, or you wouldn't make such ridiculous claims!

What exactly is your definition of imposition? Because I see none of it here! I know these people, I speak their language, nobody I know is imposed upon in a religious way, or otherwise.

Sorry NSIS I thought you lived in Spain.

 

[NSIS]

Sorry NSIS I thought you lived in Spain.

I do. And nobody imposed beliefs, religious or otherwise on me, or anybody I know!