Did you grow up in Spain? I thought you were English. Please avoid if you do not wish to answer personal questions and accept my apologies for asking. Spain is still a catholic country and although it appears modern in many ways and young people largely seem to reject the catholic dogmas the fact remains the Catholic Church is still the dominant religion and still attempts to impose it's views
It can attempt to all it wants. However, its influence is rapidly waning. The young of Spain are far more educated and enlightened than they once were. The parental imposition that may have existed when you and I were young, is no longer prevelant here. Yes, the Catholic Church is still prominent, but it's tolerated rather than accepted by the majority of today's Spanish youth.
I agree with your last sentence, however, I don't think there's anything wrong with teaching children (i.e. around 12/13) about the different economic theories and systems and why different people believe in the different ideologies. Kids at that age are naturally curious and question a lot of the things they learn or they ask why things are a certain way, so there's nothing inherently wrong with teaching kids about things like this, in my opinion. Perhaps my position may change as I get older. Without wanting to make this personal, I can just as easily claim that your position on religion being mythical and full of fairytales as being damaging and arrogant too. Whether you take offence is irrelevant. The premise of the questions you've asked are ridiculous. You're assuming that by teaching your child about Christianity or Islam, this somehow negatively impacts their health and well-being. There's no correlation between them at all. Not really. If you're saying to a child that religion is a bunch of mumbo-jumpo garbage, the child will obviously take that as a given because they look up to you as the source of knowledge at that age. You would be imposing your atheistic viewpoint on your child in the same way a religious person would with their views. There's really no difference. I wouldn't say that this is the reason, but if you want to think that, that's up to you. Considering my religion is the fastest growing religion in the world, that would clearly say to me that not everyone shares your opinion that people would be 'ruining their life on the basis of fairy-tales from thousands of years ago'. You seem to be stating your opinion so matter-of-factly when it's anything but.
Brunel let's be clear I did not teach my child that religion is mumbo jumbo I allowed her to make up her own mind. I have explained this a couple of times but as you seem not to understand: Matters of belief that are taught to the exclusion of other matters of belief is not education it is indoctrination. If you are advocating the teaching of comparative religion in say an anthropological setting then I have no problem with that. There is no correlation between health and well being and Christianity or Islam. Says you! Perhaps you would like to look again at what you have just said. Why would you pursue a way of life that has no bearing on your health or well being? There is little understanding between us because standing between us is a set of ancient beliefs based on nothing more than faith. You chose to stand with this faith as your support. I chose to stand by the ability of my mind to absorb the reality around me relying on personal responsibility. On top of all of that you are an Arsenal supporter and that really seals our differences
I agree that matters of belief should be taught holistically, rather than cherry-picking bits and pieces. But I still maintain that there's nothing conceptually wrong with teaching your child or at least explaining to them why one set of beliefs are better than another if it can be justified with valid reasoning. I think it's best to leave it there now
I'm sorry, but the acts of the Catholic Church (which you are a passive advocate for through your support of all religious freedom), has absolutely inflicted the above atrocities on millions of people around the world. All around the world banning contraceptives ensures that transfer of many diseases is unhindered. All around the world banning contraceptives ensures women have a chance of pregnancy every time their male partner wants sexual gratification, causing larger family sizes and therefore increasingly stretched family resources. All around the world banning contraceptives prevents women from being involved in the economic sphere due to the natural pregnancy cycle and 'motherly' duties to newborns, further restricting their access to education and employment opportunities. The treatment of women in many Islamic cultures is equally despicable, if a little less subtle. I absolutely would say that ISIS represents a form of Islam, and the KKK represents a form of Christianity! The fact that they justify their actions through references to the religion confirms this. I understand that ISIS do not represent your personal form of Islam, but the very fact that all religious doctrine is subject to multiple interpretations is the fundamental issue behind these conflicts and confusion. Until religions are able to modernise and clarify the subjective passages in their founding texts then atrocities will continue in perpetuity.
It's another No True Scotsman fallacy. You claim that they're not True Muslims, because you can interpret the teachings of your faith in a way that would make them bad followers. They say the same about you. There's plenty of violence and 'justifiable' killing in each of the Abrahamic books, so those that are that way inclined will find plenty to hold onto. Whether any of the faiths actually push for it is debatable. And we're with that bloke from North of the border, again. Find examples and they're insane and not true followers. And it's another argument with that ever-present Jock. You're simply picking people who agree with your interpretation, when there are plenty that don't. The link that you've provided explicitly contradicts what you've claimed, by the way. He's saying what I've said: that those that denounce ISIS as un-Islamic are on the same ground that ISIS are on when they do so for moderate Muslims. Both can find support for their own beliefs and actions within Islamic teachings. The Westboro Baptist Church in America don't represent the average American or the average Christian. Are they Christians and Americans? I'd say that they are. Oh, I see what the issue is here. You're reading opinion pieces based on other opinion pieces and believing them. Note that they don't actually link to what he said and it's context at any point, preferring to link to other blog links, instead. That's never a good sign when you're looking for an honest piece, in my opinion. I don't necessarily back Harris and I find that many of his statements are rather inflammatory. I was interested in finding out your sources though, as they seem rather disingenuous and biased, frankly. You'll forgive me if I find anything written by a guy who authored I Don't Believe In Atheists to be quite laughable from the start, I'm sure. Chris Hedges is a Presbyterian minister and got in a little trouble recently for being a plagiarist. He also makes broad claims about what people have said without sourcing those claims. What Harris actually said about the prospect of a group of lunatics, like ISIS or the Taliban getting hold of long-range nuclear weapons. Our current mutually assured destruction thinking wouldn't be relevant and it would probably result in horrific consequences. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy There's plenty to object to in the things that he says without having to make things up. That doesn't seem enough for some people, though. And the Roman Empire, so far back this conflict goes. Tell that to the secular bloggers of Bangladesh. Oh, you can't, as they're dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_secularists_in_Bangladesh There's a wide variety of other examples, dating back centuries. I'm not saying that Islam is alone in this, by the way. It's clearly not. Galileo's treatment for his heretical teachings of heliocentrism are the most obvious example. It's hard to say that religion hasn't held back scientific thinking when things like that happened.
You're making the same points time and time again. If they're going against basic principles of Islam, then they are clearly not following the faith properly. The most conservative Salafi scholars have clearly dismissed IS as being legitimate or as being Muslims. They are from a sect called Khawarij. Someone claiming something doesn't mean its true. If I said I'm a purple unicorn with three-tails, I may genuinely believe that in my mind. It doesn't mean that it's the objective reality. As per our discussions in the past, you clearly have an issue with Islam. Which is fine because you have your reasons, but there are a lot of misconceptions about Islam that you seem to have and you're unwilling to change your position on the matter. If you think IS are genuinely Muslims because they say they are, why aren't more people supporting them and backing their cause? Again, extremists will use anything to justify their actions. Including going against the mainstream Islamic position and scholars to suit their agenda. You've had members of IS talk about replicating the feats of the British Empire and colonialism. This clearly shows that they're not just using scripture to validate their actions. French Journalist Didier Francois, who was held hostage, said the same thing. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/03/intl_world/amanpour-didier-francois/ You're just arguing for the sake of it now. You know as well as I do that they're not. I expected better from you PNP. https://www.rt.com/news/190468-muslim-scholars-islamic-state/ Poor form. There are certain laws and principles in Islam that everyone has to abide by - praying 5 times a day, giving zakat, not drinking alcohol, fornicating and some others that are mainstream. Other parts are open to interpretation where even some scholars disagree. The best thing to do in this case is to follow what the Prophet had reportedly said and following the authentic Hadith (some have been poorly translated over the years). There's not one strict, rigid Islam to follow per se. But there are certain basics that all have to abide by. Why pick and choose bits of Islam that suit your lifestyle? May as well create your own religion. As I say, context is important. This is why people look up to muslim scholars to explain the meanings behind certain verses of the Qur'an or Hadith. That's your opinion. I don't share it and there would be a multitude of christians that don't share it either. Nafeez Ahmed is a very, very good investigative journalist. Although he may not be particularly fond of Harris or Dawkins or Nawaz, the claims that have been made have, generally, been supported. Having read Harris's response to the alleged claim of 'nuking of the Muslim world', I still think his position is wrong and counterproductive. You seem to know more about this bloke than me, but there are a lot of people, non-Muslim or even not religious, that don't like Harris and have issues with his opinions. And what about the majority of Muslims who have opposed the violent monstrosity? http://www.benarnews.org/english/news/bengali/publisher-killed-11022015154152.html There are extremists in all forms (not just religious) who take things way too far. It doesn't mean they're practicing the faith properly and most clerics, scholars and imams would tell you this. Otherwise Muslims wouldn't be happily living and conversing with non-Muslims, you would all be dead by now.
Perhaps our subscribers to God Bothering/Allah Attracting can shed some light on this: If God or Allah, depending on which faith you believe, made everything, why the **** did he/she make guns and bombs???
More to the point, why would He (or She ) not just reveal themselves to us. Pretty stark choice then if all doubt is removed.
"I'm told that he has been known to move in 'mysterious ways'" The fact that the existence of "God" is not (currently - or possibly ever) falsifiable is a big problem to science.
Only because god-botherers have a remarkable and unashamed ability to backtrack whenever science proves them wrong. With Christianity in particular, any time one of the bible's claims is proved to be false, suddenly that section is only a "metaphor", and not meant to be taken "literally". That's all very well, but they didn't have any problems with forcing people to take it literally for the last 2000 years, it wasn't a metaphor then These modern day happy clappy Christians celebrate the history and traditions of the church, but fail to recognise that they would have been tortured and persecuted by the Christians of days gone by, for being non-believers.
I have an issue with religion as whole, not Islam specifically. I also have an issue with people stifling debate by claiming that those that disagree with them are bigots or fascists. You claim that ISIS aren't legitimate or even Muslims because some scholars disagree with them. That's true of every sect, even the major ones. Sunnis claim that Shiites aren't true Muslims and vise versa. There are no actual Muslims, in this case. The same equally applies to Christianity with it's thousands of sects and Judaism, with it's various degrees of orthodoxy. When did I claim that they were solely using scripture, either as motivation or to justify their behaviour? They commonly seem to be young, disinfrachised men who have been sold on the idea of something special. To deny that Islam has anything to do with it is just bizarre, though. The same is true of Christianity and the KKK. It's a big part of their organisation. Russia Today? Awful source. Literally Putin's mouthpiece. I believe that I've already addressed this, though. Various followers claim that others aren't True Scotsmen. So what? Having a Jew as the first signatory is an awful idea, too. Like ISIS will take it seriously after that. There are some parts that are virtually set in stone, but a hell of a lot of it's debatable. As you point out yourself, even the various scholars disagree and interpretations change over time, as new information is discovered. This leaves a lot of leeway for pick-n-mix religion and is true of virtually all faiths. It's funny how many people think that these holy books tell them what they already believe. Look at the current Christian Conservatives in America. Their politics couldn't be more different to what most people would claim that Jesus Christ taught. It's a pretty standard disconnect, in my experience. Exactly. They're following their book to the letter, as far as they're concerned, yet that makes them bad Christians, somehow. I'd say that they're ****ty people and completely mislead, but they can support their claims through scripture. Where does he support his claims? He links to other blogs and other claims about his claims. He doesn't source anything to the original point and clearly isn't being honest about what Harris said. You're free to disagree with the man and think poorly of him, but do so knowing what he actually wrote. Ahmed misrepresented it at best and completely mislead his readers intentionally at worst. The does not make a good journalist, in my book. I've already stated that I disagree with Harris about various things and his delivery is often very controversial. The same is true of each of the so-called New Atheists that I've read. I find it incredibly tiresome to see them constantly misrepresented, though. A lot of what they're saying is going to be massively controversial, anyway. Their critics would do better to address the points being made, rather than attacking continual strawmen. It doesn't take the majority to commit foul actions, but the lack of justice for those that do is extremely telling. It also doesn't matter how many clerics, scholars and imams object when the source material gives direct instructions. You can claim that they're bad hadith, but then why are they still in there? Christians make similar claims about the Bible. The third result for a Google search on apostasy in Islam brings up this result: https://islamqa.info/en/20327 It explicitly endorses the execution of those leaving the faith. This is the guy that runs it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Al-Munajjid Respected scholar of the Salafi movement and ****ing fruitcake, frankly. Is he a proper Muslim?
"Only because god-botherers have a remarkable and unashamed ability to backtrack whenever science proves them wrong." The Hebrew creation myth is consistent with current scientific understanding, if you consider the imperfect definition of words. AFAIK for the classic commandment "Thou shalt not <kill>" , the Hebrew word for <kill> can also mean murder etc. Which can give it a very different potential meaning and interpretation. So similarly for the N <day>s stuff. If <day> in Hebrew can also mean a period of time, and not the planetary definition of rotation once around an axis, then again things are very different. Therefore your "god-botherers" cannot use the (hopefully) precise definitions of current human science to corroborate the timeline of their creation myth. Science OTOH can do what they seek to do, only if they cease and desist on the above (the irony of dichotomy eh ) .
Really? As far as I can tell all versions of Genesis quite clearly define a day as being a period of one evening and one morning (ie the planetary rotation definition). Secondly the genealogy/ancestry of Jesus to Abraham, Abraham to Noah, and Noah to Adam and the generations in between are quite clearly outlined, and quite obviously do not stretch to the 2,000,000 years that we have evidence for Homo Erectus, let alone its precedents.
Garbage. You disagree with me on pretty much every point I've made and I don't think/nor have I claimed that you're a bigot. Harris and Dawkins are different matters entirely and you're not going to convince me otherwise, I'm afraid. Some scholars? Pretty much every mainstream Islamic scholar disagrees with their fundamental cause and what they do. They are very identical to the khawarij sect. Who were not muslims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawarij I genuinely can't believe we're still arguing about this. That being said, however, some individuals, particularly in Syria, join ISIS because they're forced to. If someone puts a gun to your head and says join us or die, you can't judge these people by the same parameters that you would with people in more stable countries when death is the only other alternative. If the followers of a sect make claims that go against mainstream Islamic beliefs, then that can be deemed to be unIslamic. Cursing the Prophet's wives and suggesting that Shia imams have infallible judgement and they are equal to God is probably not the best way to convince people that they're serious about their faith. People find that insulting and ludicrous. Personally, I wouldn't label someone from a different sect a 'non-Muslim' because I don't have the jurisdiction to do so, but I can understand why others would feel that way. Well, if Islam does have anything to do with it, I don't think the religion is the central reason for why they act the way they do. People that have had first-hand experience with the terrorist group have said as much. Irrelevant. Look at the content. Other media outlets posted pretty much the same story. Who said ISIS want to take them seriously, by the way? They don't. They just want to continue killing and taking over cities. They don't care about what those with are way more informed than them say. I agree that this is very problematic, especially from an outsider's perspective or even for muslims in general that hear disputes when they're unsure on certain matters. I suppose this is where the concept of ijtihad comes in. But you or I or anyone can do the same thing. Theoretically, anyone is capable of doing this if they so wished. If someone does do that, wouldn't you say it's more the fault of the person than scripture? Especially when a lot more nuance is required. The opinion piece he cited for Harris was from Glenn Greenwald, who has directly quoted what Harris has said. 'Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death" ''It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of devout Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence" "this is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims, but we are absolutely at war with millions more than have any direct affiliation with Al Qaeda." "All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the earth." I can't understand how you don't understand why other muslims wouldn't find this deeply offensive and untrue. When he's given a public platform to say things like this, it damages the image of muslims even further and the preconceived ideas people have about Islam and Muslims worsens, even when they're not true. He's feeding into stereotypes. . And I can just as easily say the same about my faith. Except it doesn't. Context. How the hell do I know why they're still there? Maybe some people keep it there so that others can learn how to distinguish between the real chains of narration and what isn't. Anyone can make things up or mistranslate things. It's not a black and white issue. See, the reason why I say context is important is because you need to take each case by its merits. The guy has been born, raised and educated in Saudi Arabia so I wouldn't be surprised if he's being bankrolled by the Saudi government with some of the **** he comes out with. Ultimately, I do believe people like this are problematic because he spouts utter rubbish. However, when the guy is also a rape apologist, misogynist, claiming it being sinful to live in non-Muslim countries and befriend other non-Muslims whilst also advocating forced marriages, it's safe to say that he clearly isn't representative of the preponderance of Muslims or scholars and is a ****ing moron. His views are heretical. Maybe not in Saudi, but in most of the world.
He's a NEW ATHEIST - his whole purpose is to ridicule religion - and it doesn't matter that you're offended, because in his eyes and in mine and many others, his offensive words pale into insignificance against the actual damage caused by those who claim to be acting in the name of Islam, Christianity, Judaism or whatever. Harris, Dawkins et al don't propose to ban religion or persecute the religious - they want to eradicate religion by convincing people - through words - that religious belief is a damaging fallacy. You have conceded that it's possible that religion plays some part in the actions of ISIS, the KKK, etc. Now given that, and given that most atheists do not see a single benefit to religious belief in the modern world, can you not understand that in their eyes religion only serves as one of the obstacles to solving problems like the middle east, problems like poverty, problems like disease, problems like discrimination. You may be right that religion only plays a small part in the middle east issues and all of the turmoil that is happening there would be happening regardless due to geopolitical and cultural issues. I disagree with that. However I also don't see that religion is providing any solutions to any of the problems mentioned, and certainly no solution that wouldn't be otherwise possible in a secular society.
You may have noticed if you have read my posts that I am not the biggest fan of all things in the United States of North America. But I like these words from our constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." They’ve kept the government and religion from contaminating each other in this country. There’s still, unfortunately some toleration of things like Christmas trees, but thanks to the American Civil Liberties Union, there really is just about zero religion in schools or other government institutions (except for the civic cult, of course). On the other hand, while everyone must pay public school taxes, parents are free to pay for their children to attend schools worshiping Christ, Baal, or non-stick cooking utensils if they so choose. In an ideal world, I might support a rigorously equal distribution of resources for all children, and instruction in either no or every religion (probably no, when I think about it). I might also support strictly limiting what parents can say and do regarding their children. I might, though I’d worry about unintended consequences. In this one, there doesn’t seem to be any practical alternative to letting those who created a human brain warp it in whatever way they want. It would be nice at the least to make both abortion through the 64th trimester and parricide legal, on the grounds that it might promote birth control, provide a quick, inexpensive and effective remedy for real and imagined abuse, and gently encourage common courtesy. It would also add a welcome element of drama to dinner table conversations. "Are you sure you want me to take out the garbage?"
Humans are animals, far more than we would like to admit, and far less civilised. Religion happens to be just one conduit by which we sometimes express the worst we can be. But the Nazis weren't Muslim and relatively recently we've seen "Christian" militias exterminating Muslims in former Yugoslavia. It seems all that is required is for someone else to take responsibility, or for the conditions to exist where the "I was only obeying orders" excuse can be rolled out. Goodness, just look at the psychologist Milgram's experiments to see what humans are capable of with very little pressure indeed. So whist we rightly condemn those terrorists who debase their religion as the reason for their actions, we must also not conclude that a whole religion is therefore to blame. We must understand (and be wary) that we are all potentially capable of atrocity under certain circumstances, because time and time again people who believe they will not commit these crimes under similar circumstances do so.
