Muslim outrage at a billboard
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-06-2017, 01:56 AM
RE: Muslim outrage at a billboard
(10-06-2017 01:48 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 06:17 PM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  The context argument is bullshit anyway.

It doesn't matter if the believer you're talking to actually believes that one should be put to death for working on the Sabbath, or for cursing their parents. The god they believe in in the bible they believe in actually commanded that to happen at one time. It's supposedly the same timeless god who never changes, so whether said believer believes it or not is again...irrelevant.

This is why I hate dogma so much. It's ridiculous that someone has to revere and endorse the whole book, even when they blatantly disagree with parts of it. They can't just come out and say, "This bit is morally corrupt, so I ignore it" or "These are just stories, you're not meant to take them so seriously". They have to defend it somehow.

But how many christians revere Bible? It's one thing to spout nonsense about how cool and timeless Bible is but quite another to live according to ancient goat herders taboos. I think that possessing the Bible is just a part of the packet of being good christian - one just have to say how great it is, actual knowledge of content and living by it isn't required.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
10-06-2017, 02:08 AM
RE: Muslim outrage at a billboard
You're right, I didn't use the best word there. I meant that they have to profess that it is some sort of magically superior book, through and through.

I wish that this whole "Word of God" myth would be dropped and replaced with "Ancient man trying to understand God". It's the former which is so dangerous, and which turns people who say it (and then ignore it) into hypocrites.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
10-06-2017, 03:47 AM
RE: Muslim outrage at a billboard
(09-06-2017 02:26 PM)Stevil Wrote:  ... Muslims are no different to Christians, in my view. They are not dangerous people, not people to be scared of.

Individual, non-radicalised Muslims may well be no more dangerous than other people such as Christians, but here in the first world, Christians aren't murdering schoolkids, driving vehicles through crowds of pedestrians, blowing up railway stations and buses, or shooting innocent hostages during religious sieges.

No recent act of religious terrorism yet carried out in Australia—which has resulted in multiple deaths—has been attributed to Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Mormons, or Hindus. Only Muslims.

—I rest my case.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2017, 10:47 AM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2017 10:51 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Muslim outrage at a billboard
(10-06-2017 03:47 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(09-06-2017 02:26 PM)Stevil Wrote:  ... Muslims are no different to Christians, in my view. They are not dangerous people, not people to be scared of.

Individual, non-radicalised Muslims may well be no more dangerous than other people such as Christians, but here in the first world, Christians aren't murdering schoolkids, driving vehicles through crowds of pedestrians, blowing up railway stations and buses, or shooting innocent hostages during religious sieges.

No recent act of religious terrorism yet carried out in Australia—which has resulted in multiple deaths—has been attributed to Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Mormons, or Hindus. Only Muslims.

—I rest my case.

If the United States was economically subjugated to powerful, industrialized Muslim nations who were using military force to occupy us and ensure that our leaders handed over our resources to them at favorable rates (and deals that benefited only those leaders, but not the common people of the USA), for over a century... do you think that the heavily-armed fundamentalist Christians (about whom we spend so much time whining, here, for their literalism-based bigotries) would be less radicalized, less likely to turn to terrorism in order to try to drive away those foreign, "heathen religion nation" Powers?

And would it be fair, every time some redneck with a rifle started shooting up a crowd of collaborators or occupiers, or blew up some dynamite in the middle of a crowd of such people (as they would see them), to say that "Christianity" is the problem?

Yes, right now, the circumstances are such that Christian nations are exploiting/dominating the Muslim nations, and their fundamentalists are the ones getting ever more radical in their religiousity and violence... but I have zero doubt that if the roles were reversed, it would be Arab atheists and liberal Muslims wondering aloud why practicioners of Christianity can be so obnoxious as to claim they aren't represented by the terrorist Christian fundies, or that they follow the "Prince of Peace".

Edit to Add: Before anyone says I am defending Islam as an idea/religion, I'd like to point out that it I am saying nothing of the sort. It should be clear to anyone who follows my posts that I consider Islam and Christianity to be equally dangerous, equally stupid, and equally capable of lending themselves to violent radicalization of the bigoted fundamentalists among that faith. It's simply that the economic and sociopolitical forces at work in the Muslim world since the rise of the West have done to the Muslim nations what would certainly have happened here if the roles had been reversed. It speaks to the danger of religion in all cases, but also to the danger of speaking of the religious people in a certain religion in blanket terms.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
12-06-2017, 07:53 AM
RE: Muslim outrage at a billboard
(10-06-2017 03:47 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(09-06-2017 02:26 PM)Stevil Wrote:  ... Muslims are no different to Christians, in my view. They are not dangerous people, not people to be scared of.

Individual, non-radicalised Muslims may well be no more dangerous than other people such as Christians, but here in the first world, Christians aren't murdering schoolkids, driving vehicles through crowds of pedestrians, blowing up railway stations and buses, or shooting innocent hostages during religious sieges.

No recent act of religious terrorism yet carried out in Australia—which has resulted in multiple deaths—has been attributed to Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Mormons, or Hindus. Only Muslims.

—I rest my case.

You rest your case on an anecdotal and localized example? You don't define what you mean by "recent" and you narrowly define "acts of religious terrorism" to conform to your predetermined point of view.

For example, I consider trying to "beat the gay demons" out of a homosexual man to be religious terrorism. I consider bombing an abortion clinic to be an act of religious terrorism. These and other examples happen recently in first world countries by members of those religions you named.

Are they any less radicalized than Muslim terrorists?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stefan Mayerschoff's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: