Why I dislike religion/Islam - Your personal religious history Pages PREV 1 2 | |
You got the Christian one right. Now on the Islamic one, you do know that's just a prohibition against beating a women who has cheated right? If she cheats while they are gone, she gets a talking to. If she does it again you can stop sleeping with her. If she cheats a THIRD time you can hit her once. If she does it a FORTH time then you can call in a mediator and representatives of both families to see if you should divorce or if you can reconcile. (The last part is the next paragraph that you didn't copy/paste).
It was a war. War in those days was total.
This applies to countries you have conquered. They are required to follow your laws, and if they don't, you force them. How is that different than any other country? The Jiz is a tax for non muslims. It REPLACES that mandatory charity paid by all Muslims that the non muslims don't have to pay. It was generally the same, or slightly higher, than the muslim charitable amount. You really aren't asking more of non muslims (give or take a few cents) than they are of muslims so I see nothing wrong with it. I'll right, I'm bored, you get the idea... | |
I'm pretty much like you, and because of my personal experiences with the Islamic community (my family's a Muslim, but my sister and I are Atheist) as well as analysis of religion in general, I'm an anti-Theist Agnostic Atheist (as in, I believe that it's more likely than unlikely that there isn't any deity in existence, since I don't claim to have all the answers to the universe) who believes that religion is inherently dangerous and harmful, encouraging conservatism, negatively discriminative behaviour to "sinners" or those not in their "clan", self-segregation, sexism, misogynism, patriarchy, homophobia, conformity, and a lack of free identity. There aren't any good aspects of religion, because you don't need to be religious to be a good person, focus on bettering yourself, "love thy neighbour", and all that stuff. I rank it as being on the same level as fascism, and almost as bad as Nazism. That's not hyperbole either. If the majority of Christians and Muslims weren't homophobic, don't you think gay marriage would have widespread legalization? And how about the fact that the Middle East's ass-backwards policies based entirely around their highly subjective religion? And don't give me that "multiple interpretations" bullshit, you're grasping at straws. It's right in their fucking holy scripture, which, by the way, is outdated and shouldn't be relevant in our more educated modern age. And even if an Islamic terrorist's interpretation of the Qu'ran is wrong, doesn't that just prove my point even further that the damn book is dangerous as hell, even to a sane mind? "No true Scotsman" comes into play here. I've read most of the Qu'ran, I know my shit. And it's very violent and fascist. That's in context too. So I don't act like a bloody victim and cry "Racism!" when someone calls you out on your bigotry. Either way, I can't have much respect for groups of people who worship the word of a deity who believes that I deserve endless suffering in Hell simply for not believing in him when there's no reason to, or masturbating when I want to let off some steam in my stressful life. And those secular Theists who generally don't hate people for being different than them and keep their religion to themselves, don't take that as a personal insult. If you're as nice as you say you are and I met you in person, I'm sure we'd be able to get along, maybe even in spite of my disagreement with the ideology that you may or may not base your entire life around. But as a whole, I fucking abhor your wider community and what they've done to me and the rest of the world. | |
Seeing as how the majority of Japanese are neither Christian nor Muslim, the society is very secular, and very tolerant of homosexual behavior, and yet gay marriage isn't legal there either... your logic is faulty. | |
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them." Or as Mr. Miyagi said: "No such thing as bad student, only bad teacher." It is one thing to blame a teacher for the ills of the student, but it is quite another to extend that to encompass the entire subject of what is being taught. A teacher in any subject can teach their students bad ideas. In all of human history I doubt you will find a single subject that has not had corrupt teachings that were perverted and used to inspire evil. Religion is not a homogeneous timeless body, even a single particular religion is typically divided in many sects that changed over time. This evolution of belief provide opportunity for new corruption to infect the practice, but this is a battle for truth that every way of thinking and understanding the world must confront. The head to cut off is the ideals you think are evil, not the tradition of trying to discover a higher answer for our own existence. The two are not inseparable beliefs, and claiming that they must be only gives strength behind the ideas you are hoping to undermine. | |
Was it necessarily? There's at least one passage that describes God punishing a Jewish leader for sparing the cattle (and maybe some of the women and children? I don't quite remember.) So there was apparently some ambivalence among people about such things... God seems to come down on the side of showing absolutely no mercy. Can this really be safely excused by historical relativism? | |
I shouldn't have to present the list for you if you have read the books at all. The Muslim and Israelite desert tribes killing, raping and plundering with their gods blessing. Both the Quran and the bible are propped with medieval moral and heinous acts. And this they shove in our faces as a moral guide? I think not. Nothing out of context here. Move along. Not even a good try for an apologist. | |
So, you're going to conceal my argument with a snip, then refuse to address a damn thing I said. Great. How is this not flame-baiting again? If you don't want to respond to the point, how about just not responding? | |
You are the one to talk. Remember you from the rape problem discussion we had in Norway. I gave you articles, new reports and even foreign new channels taking an interest due to demonstrations we had against the rape epidemic. But you went on like it wasn't there despite the evidence I showed you. I had a lot more, but I came to realize you are to much in love with your own ranting. You simply are incapable of admitting that you might be wrong. Such a person do not hold much discussion value. And people use snip all the time. They just have to click on your name to see what you wrote. | |
Someone mentioned this ayah to twist its meaning to fit his/her intention. Sadly he wasn't trying to reveal the truth about it. Commentary: "They are as a garment to you as you are to them." (2: 187) "Your wives are your tilth; go, then, to your tilth as you may desire, but prepare well for yourselves and fear God." (2: 223) More: | |
Just as the other ayah, used by him to prove his dislike to islam. 9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. Some people have falsely concluded from verse 9:29, that Muslims are commanded to attack all non-Muslims until they pay money. In fact, such an interpretation is completely false and contradicts authentic Islamic teachings. Commenting on this verse, Shaykh Jalal Abualrub writes: These Ayat (Quranic verses) stress the necessity of fighting against the People of the Scripture, but under what conditions? We previously established the fact that the Islamic State is not permitted to attack non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs, however, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves and protect their religion. Muslims are not permitted to attack non-Muslims who signed peace pacts with them, or non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic State. (Abualrub, Holy Wars, Crusades, Jihad) Read full article: | |
You speak as if religion itself is the cause of the world's ills. People aren't violent because religion teaches them to be. Humans have inherent capacity for violence, and religion is one of many things that keep violence in check, by creating boundaries and rules for when it is appropriate.
That seems extremely idealistic to me. If they didn't have religion, they would have found some other excuse to fight. | |
i remember that thread and what you had was a report from a police authority who decided anyone who was a bit brown was a dirty Muslim. hardly condemning or solid evidence. | |
Deuteronomy 20:10, a city is offered peace before any attack. Rambam and Ramban maintain that this applied equally to the Canaanites. Also, a city is surrounded only on three sides, allowing escape. The rest have been addressed by others in this topic.
A city being fought by the Israelites would really have to go out of their way to put themselves into that situation. | |
Hardly condemning or solid evidence? What the fuck are you on about? They was caught and found guilty on evidence. Sperm samples, victim statements and admitting guilt. During the interrogations, the police noticed how an alarming number of them was Muslim immigrants. This was back in 2006. But I guess the Danish reports lie as well http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/rape-jihad-in-denmark-more-than-half-of-all-convicted-rapists-have-immigrant-backgrounds-iraqis-iran.html It seems for Muslim men infidel women are there for the pickings. An Iranian immigrant who got his ass jailed for rape in Trondheim (Norwegian city) said in court that he couldn't understand what the fuzz was all about. See the mentality? The thread mention religious history as a cause for disliking Islam, and it is, but here and now gives ample reasons to do the same. | |
your source is about as viable as a kkk or neo-nazi website used as a source, kind of sad when you cant find anything reputable or you know not a blog or viable though. again my quote from the last thread.
| |
I said check out the danish article. I linked to that site because they explained in English what it was all about. They didn't lie about the article.
Mikkel Bolt is a hard liner communist who blame everything on capitalism. Yea he is a real expert. I give you public reports and genuine new articles. But you give me bloggers. Who gives a fuck about bloggers. Especially those with an political agenda. | |
yeah sorry the blog is still insanely biased and so is the tabloid BT. dont try to condemn my link when all you posted was a bigoted blog with a bigoted source. seriously Berlingske Tidende is the equivalent of the daily mail and fox news. EDIT: seems i got the wrong name of the tabloid, well B.T is hte equivalent of fox news it is a sensationalist tabloid that uses hyperbolic and exploitative stories. | |
Christianity's still the largest religion in the world, and may've had influence on Japan. Also, don't they have some gender-conforming behaviour stuff in their history? Something about them generally being tolerant of homosexuality, but even if you're a gay woman, you're still expected to marry a man and care for them and stuff? | |
Yeaah... but in this case it didn't.
Yes, they do. And it's completely irrelevant to your claim. You are trying to claim that the majority of Muslims and Christians must be homophobic, as though that's the only possible reason anyone could ever oppose gay marriage. I've got no problems with you condemning anyone who thinks that their thousand year-old book is a valid reason to deny homosexuals the same rights as straight people (especially when homosexuality isn't mentioned by their book, and the few times gay sex is mentioned are ambiguous or no more condemned than other things we take for granted, like eating shrimp, divorce, or wearing clothing of multiple fabrics.) But you're over-stating the case. One has to be especially careful of how they term things in these discussion, lest they reveal themselves to be simply attacking the tribe that's not their own rather than attacking behavior that really is unethical. | |
Well, marriage is an institution that originated in religion for a man to basically show off his new woman to her family. | |
Since no one knows the actually origins of marriage, I'll call for a citation on that. | |
Did it? I suppose you have evidence to back-up that claim? Perhaps proof that prior to the existence of orgnized religion, humans didn't form life-long pair bonds that were socially sanctioned and generally expected to last long-term if not life-long. It's amazing that for as much as people have a bug up their butts about religion not being science, they're willing to tolerate just blatantly making up shit about religion because it "feels right". | |
Its all rather chicken and egg. If one assumes an atheist viewpoint then it follows that religions are invented by man. Any bigotry or 'unacceptable' viewpoints found in their texts must have been present and widespread beforehand (people being unlikely to start to follow something they don't mostly agree with). This suggests that it isn't religion itself that is necessarily the problem. Now, the counter is that religion 'legitimises' these ideas, but take religion away, and we'd legitimise it with 'well -name of philosopher- said it' or 'the constitution says' or 'well all my mates agree with me and it stands to reason'. Actual moral thought is hard, who wants to do the hedonistic calculus for every sodding action they take, people are always going to take short-cuts. At least religion encourages people to think about ethics at least once a week, even if they come to conclusions you don't like. Its more than most would manage without it. | |
ive noticed something curious when ive spoken to muslims online from muslim countries. its not so much a religious as cultural issue. from what ive seen the moment you are born your life is laid out and you know what is expected of you and what you should think. while the culture emphasises family and society before the individual its hampered by the loss of thinking outside the box and individual choice | |
To me, the logic is very simple. If you advocate the teaching and spreading of a book that advocates atrocities, then you are advocating atrocities. GODWIN'S LAW GO So, if I claim to be a part of an organization that claims Mein Kampf as its source of inspiration, and call myself a Nazi (Or a National Socialist for that matter), and I'm recruiting--- 1) Don't you think someone is going to have every right to call me on the parts that attack Jews? Christians and Muslims spread a book that advocates atrocity. Therefore, they are complicit in those atrocities. The principle character of that book advocates atrocity, and commits atrocity. Therefore by worshipping that character, you are complicit in his atrocity if he exists. I have no respect for that level of dishonesty. Say what you will about the Westboro Church... they're assholes, but at least they can point to where in the book it tells them to be assholes.
It actually doesn't in most people. That's the problem. It hands you a set of laws and tells you to follow them or make God angry, or disappointed, or whatever. The difference between the sects are simply WHICH laws are being followed. I used to be a Christian, until I DID start thinking about ethics and morality. What took me outside Christianity was a single bit of the Bible, and once I learned about that, I started looking for others, and suddenly I realized the book was no source of morality at all, and that the God in it, should he exist, is evil and absolutely must be opposed by every moral human being. The story of Lot. We are all taught that he was the only pure man in all of Sodom and Gamorrah (and two other cities most people never mention ever) and because of his purity, he was spared the wrath of the angels of destruction. We all know the frame of the story, but no one (except atheists) actually mentions the act Lot did to prove his purity. He offered his daughters up for gang rape to a mob of Sodomites, lying about their virginity with no heed to the wishes of their husbands. His reward is he got drunk, fucked his daughters, and they gave birth to the ancestors of two tribes. That's fucked up shit! That lead me to realize that Abraham not-quite-sacrificing Issac was an incredibly cruel troll... and then you get to the Ten Commandments. Exodus 20. God's giving his law to Moses, and it's said these Ten Commandments are the law he gave. But if you read on, you realise he's given a LOT more than Ten Commandments. He goes on and on for four more chapters until he finally tells Moses how to build the Ark of the Covenant. And in those laws, he's teaching his people how they may enslave others, that it's okay to sell women into sexual slavery (and how there's no limit on the number of 'wives' gotten this way), how one may beat a servant to death so long as they die slowly, and then later, describes how he will commit genocide against a handful of named tribes. Sorry. It's a book of atrocities. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 | |
I am always amazed that people who seem otherwise intelligent let their preconceived notions and bigotry blind them to that truth. Context always matters. One sentence out of a long story tells you nothing.
People like that remind me of this nutty christian couple on TV that want you to send them money because the world is ending. All they do is read headlines, then make up some shit that probably has nothing to do with the story to make their point. (Actually we see that in these forums all the time too lol)