Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

Tisme · 7 November 2014

Value Collector said:
Is that where a man sells/exchanges his daughter for cattle or pieces of silver?

Because the idea of a man marrying a women in a consensual union based on love is a relatively new thing, For most of our history traditional marriage involved selling off your daughter.

or do you mean the traditional marriage from the bible where Abraham has many wives? is it polygamy you want?

or do you mean the 19th century traditional marriage of 1 white man to 1 white woman? Are you against interracial marriages? because these where protested in the 20th century.

What exactly is your concept of a traditional marriage?

Drawing a bit of long bow with some of those statements, for effect no doubt, but I know I get into hot water when I suggest marriage should be based around procreation and child rearing. The love thing doesn't need a ceremony/certificate IMO, and in my instance my love and affection wasn't elevated or devalued by proclaiming this and that, rings, suit, meal, etc.....

I would suspect marriages in the early days were one man multiple wives, because blokes had a tendency to die of exhaustion, warring and whoring, leaving an imbalance of men vs. women in the local tribe? I don't know because I wasn't there.... or too busy in my previous lives as Mark Antony, Napoleon, Ramesses II, and so on.

Value Collector · 7 November 2014

Tisme said:
Drawing a bit of long bow with some of those statements, for effect no doubt, but I know I get into hot water when I suggest marriage should be based around procreation and child rearing.
.

Not really, all the things I mentioned have been considered traditional in the past, some still are. And it's true the things that people call traditional now are not really that old.

In my opinion you don't need a certificate to be married, if two people make a commitment to each other, they are married, However if the government is going to get involved in the marriage business, they should do it fairly, and recognise all marriages, especially when they offer privileges to those marriages they recognise.

The love thing doesn't need a ceremony/certificate IMO, and in my instance my love and affection wasn't elevated or devalued by proclaiming this and that, rings, suit, meal, etc.....

What your talking about here is a wedding, not a marriage, your marriage probably existed before you wedding and hopefully long after it.

Craton · 7 November 2014

bellenuit said:
I think a significant part of the dogma of most major religions is inherently evil </snip>

Dogma: (from here)

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.[1] It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.

Therein lies the problem, "an authority" lays down the principle/s, the dogma and I'll bet none of these "authorities" had altruist motives other than to further their own personal agendas.

Craton · 7 November 2014

Value Collector said:
The ten commandments is a rubbish list, and any thinking person could put together a better list, out of the ten there is only a handful that are worth anything, for example the first 4 are worthless, and could easily be replaced by much more meaningful sentiments.

A rubbish list eh. I'd venture that all the worlds holy texts are a bit rubbish. I agree a person in today's world could put together a far better altruist list but we are talking about ideologies that were laid down a long time ago as a basis for social fabric, a way to live life in that fabric and one had to follow blindly no. Blind devotion?
I can't come to that.

However, I do subscribe that religion is meant as a way to live with respect, harmony, to do good and with a higher purpose upon this earth. I certainly don't subscribe to warring, killing, murdering et al in the name of religion that's for sure and those that do, are evil.

Wysiwyg · 7 November 2014

Craton said:
I certainly don't subscribe to warring, killing, murdering et al in the name of religion that's for sure and those that do, are evil.

And that is the majority belief. Even non-religious practice. Maybe it is the 'fear of death' in the majority that sways their thinking such? People certainly don't lean toward dying. At the root of life is survival.

Value Collector · 7 November 2014

Craton said:
However, I do subscribe that religion is meant as a way to live with respect, harmony, to do good.

And smoking is just meant to be a harmless leisure activity, but things don't always work out that way, and when we learn the real side effects are harmful, we should avoid the dangerous activity.

Can you think of a single positive benefit of religion that can not be achieved in other ways?

And if you can't think of any positive benefit that can not be achieved in other ways, why take the pill with the terrible side effects, it's my opinion that religion should be avoided.

SirRumpole · 7 November 2014

Value Collector said:
Can you think of a single positive benefit of religion that can not be achieved in other ways?

Maybe we should ask why some people are attracted to religion in the first place.

For some, it's family pressure. They are born into a particular religion and it owns them for the rest of their lives. For some it's like a social club that gives them a sense of belonging. In that respect it's mostly harmless.

Some people are drawn into the church because it gives them hope for an afterlife which science does not. According to science, the universe is pitiless and cares nothing for them. The church gives them a feeling that something does care about them and will look after them after death. How do you achieve those comforting thoughts in "other ways" ?

Value Collector · 7 November 2014

SirRumpole said:
For some, it's family pressure. They are born into a particular religion and it owns them for the rest of their lives. ?

Yep, and kept there with threats of hell fire or in some sects threats of actual death.

For some it's like a social club that gives them a sense of belonging.

Plenty of good social clubs around without all the fanatical super natural woo.

In that respect it's mostly harmless.

Unless your group looks down on gays, then it can be harmful, you could end up subjecting future children to torment or you could end up hating on others in society.

Some people are drawn into the church because it gives them hope for an afterlife which science does not.

False hope though, and it's not really free, if you have to give up other parts of your world view based on reality.

According to science, the universe is pitiless and cares nothing for them. The church gives them a feeling that something does care about them and will look after them after death. How do you achieve those comforting thoughts in "other ways"

Understanding the reality of the universe is very inspiring, and knowing this life is probably all we have can lead you to embrace your life and other people in refreshing ways that nothing else can. There has been studies that show religious people tend to be more afraid of death than atheists, The group that feared death the most was roman Catholics, all that teaching of hell and purgatory tends to weigh on the elderly, an atheist has nothing to fear in death.

I don't fear death at all, I fear the very late stages of life when my body will break down, But religion can't help you with that, even the religious peoples knees and eyes break down, but when I breathe my last breath, I believe it will be over.

Religious folk have to worry when they breathe their last breathe that the spook show starts, will they be in heaven or hell, did they choose the right god etc etc.

luutzu · 7 November 2014

bellenuit said:
Is that the best you can come up with. I was referring to a group of 500 Muslims burning to death a Christian couple, the lady being pregnant, under the direction of a Mullah based on some trumped up blasphemy charge and you dismiss it off hand by saying I should watch Chomsky. Every time someone mentions some atrocity committed by Muslims or in the name of Islam, you seem unable to express any condemnation or acknowledgement that the act is horrific, but instead try to obfuscate by alluding to something Chomsky said or wrote.

Of course it's horrific, all killings, all murders are. Do I really need to say that they are?

The issue I raised is that it's dishonest, it's false morality when you look at crimes and murder committed by one group and you say they're evil, all of them, even the ones that didn't have anything to do with the killing... they're bad and evil.

Then kinda ignore all the other "good" kind of killing good Christians do over the centuries right up to now.

Unless you run for public office or want to serve some interest group, to say that one groups' atrocities is bad while another (your group) is good is a bit ill informed and intellectually dishonest.

The US have drones flying 24/7 over the Middle East, and at any moment the guy in a crowd near you could be targeted and you be blown up to bits. That is call anti-terrorism... but if they did anything similar, why that's pure evil savagery.

Julia · 7 November 2014

luutzu said:
How does homosexuality harm "traditional marriage"?

By all means stand up for something. But that does not always mean you have to step on something else to stand for that something.

Yea, traditional marriage is so wonderful, no one ever cheats, they both always raise their kids right... it's so wonderful it shouldn't be shared with those queers. If they have it, there will be nothing left.

Typical sarcasm.

bellenuit said:
Is that the best you can come up with. I was referring to a group of 500 Muslims burning to death a Christian couple, the lady being pregnant, under the direction of a Mullah based on some trumped up blasphemy charge and you dismiss it off hand by saying I should watch Chomsky. Every time someone mentions some atrocity committed by Muslims or in the name of Islam, you seem unable to express any condemnation or acknowledgement that the act is horrific, but instead try to obfuscate by alluding to something Chomsky said or wrote.

+1. luutzu, your style seems to be to quite rudely run off with non sequiturs full of emotive language, ignoring the actual comment to which you claim to be responding. It inhibits genuine discussion imo.

Value Collector said:
Is that where a man sells/exchanges his daughter for cattle or pieces of silver?

Because the idea of a man marrying a women in a consensual union based on love is a relatively new thing, For most of our history traditional marriage involved selling off your daughter.

or do you mean the traditional marriage from the bible where Abraham has many wives? is it polygamy you want?

or do you mean the 19th century traditional marriage of 1 white man to 1 white woman? Are you against interracial marriages? because these where protested in the 20th century.

What exactly is your concept of a traditional marriage?

SirRumpole said:
Maybe we should ask why some people are attracted to religion in the first place.

For some, it's family pressure. They are born into a particular religion and it owns them for the rest of their lives. For some it's like a social club that gives them a sense of belonging. In that respect it's mostly harmless.

Some people are drawn into the church because it gives them hope for an afterlife which science does not. According to science, the universe is pitiless and cares nothing for them. The church gives them a feeling that something does care about them and will look after them after death. How do you achieve those comforting thoughts in "other ways" ?

Rumpole's post seems a fairly reasonable commentary on the attitude of many toward religion. He's not necessarily advocating such an attitude, rather making an observation.

I've never met Tink, but having read many of her posts over the years, almost all on religion, I'd conclude that she fits into this group. The strength of the religious faith completely overrides any intellectual curiosity which might question that faith. Her association with her church is an essential part of her life, as is her belief system which wants to see 'marriage' retained for a male and a female.

I don't see why that should not be her right. She simply states how she feels, what she believes. She does not usually get into the personal insults and sarcasm which characterise some of the other posts here.

Personally I'd much prefer a world with no religion. Cannot see it as a force for good in any way.
But I can quite understand that to some people it represents a positive and reassuring part of their lives.

luutzu · 7 November 2014

Wysiwyg said:
Your thinking? Don't you think it's distorted by comparing one situation to another that are not the same? Another poster here used the word "apologist". An apologist is someone who defends a controversial issue, ideology or belief. How deep does your apologising run? Are you a passive adherent to the Quran? Are you a moderate swinger between passive and extreme or are you (and I don't think you are) a fanatical believer that manifests violent behavior?

Well you are in the right country to make democratic changes if you want. The steps are :-

1) Join a political party or create your own. (e.g. fat boy Clive and the motor enthusiast party dude)
2) Campaign your electorate announcing your beliefs, ideologies, policies etc.
3) Wait for the end of voting day to see if the majority has accepted your campaign
4) Lobby for the parties policies with all the other political parties and come to a compromise

You see, you can whinge but that is what minorities do. However the best part about living in Australia with the laws of the land and the leading political parties of the time is:-

if you don't like it, you can f off to another country and take the **** in your head with you.

I'm an apologist now? Apologist for what? For Muslims and Islam and terrorism?
Oh, I must be a swinging fanatical Muslim or something.
Give me a break man.

I could be an apologist or I could just be an honest guy who knows a thing or two about the world we live in.

If you want to live in some fantasy about us always good while them always bad and evil, then by all means. Just let the adults do the thinking.

Watch that documentary above from PBS Frontline - Losing Iraq.

See what kind of idiotic "they are evil" thinking did to the US and the Coalition of the Willing. Bremer was in charge of Iraq... the Iraqi generals and military that survived the invasion wanted to surrender and work with the West. What did he do? He "de-Baath" Iraq - since they're evil and all - and over night, 250 000 trained and armed Iraqi military personnel go under ground and start a resistance and a bunch of American and allied troops start dying, them a bunch of collateral damages.

Then a few years and a couple of dollars later, General Petraeus took command and started working with the resistance, the Sunni, and that brought greater peace to Iraq. When the US left, the Shiite gov't in Baghdad cut them off again... Most then join ISIS or help them and here we are, fighting evil.

-----

With regards to Australian politics. I thought me saying that the Australian poor, the Aussie battlers... me saying they're being screwed over is me being somewhat representative, or at least thinking of a fair portion of Australian and their interests.

That made me un-Australian and I should go back to where I came from?

Yea, my voice matters to those politicians. Just as the voices of millions of Australian families trying to make ends meet matter. Strange how a democracy where the people votes, and they presumably vote for their interests, yet somehow most policies benefit the rich and the powerful more and made the poor worst off. Strange ey? I guess the poor are just dumb... that or their voices aren't heard at all and they just have to take it... else pack up and leave.

luutzu · 7 November 2014

I'm rude?

Sorry about that. I thought calling an entire faith and all its 1.4 billion people evil was rude. Clumping some idiots or some terrorists together with all Muslims, I thought that was rude.

Was that sarcasm? I was just asking questions.

While we want a proper, honest and open discussion... let's go and ask "Are White people inherently evil", "Is Christianity inherently evil"... here are the lists of why the Whiteys are evil - this White guy did this, that White guy did that... what an evil race of criminals! This priest did this, that bishop do that, its Bible say this and that... Woah! What an evil religion.

Value Collector · 7 November 2014

Julia said:
Her association with her church is an essential part of her life, as is her belief system which wants to see 'marriage' retained for a male and a female.

I don't see why that should not be her right. She simply states how she feels, what she believes.
.

That is her right, and I in no way want to take her right to have a religion away. But if she doesn't like gay marriage, then she doesn't have to have one. But avoiding having a gay marriage themselves, is not enough for a lot of religious folk, they want to get involved in other peoples lives and stop others getting married.

I find them using terms such as "traditional marriage" to be in the same category as when they make claims that Australia is a "Christian country" or has "Christian Values"etc, they want to construct the concept that there was a place and time when all was Christian and all was good and we need to get back to that place, and anything that's not traditional needs to be avoided, that concept is just false.

That's why I said what I did, I wanted to point out that the concept of marriage has changed over the years dramatically for the better, and recognising gay marriages is just the next step.

You actually can't stop marriages happening, marriages happen through two people making a commitment to each other, however the government gets involved when it comes to recognising them and giving out privileges, I would be happy if the government butted out, but as long as they are in the business of recognising marriages, they should do it fairly, and not discriminate.

Value Collector · 7 November 2014

luutzu said:
.

While we want a proper, honest and open discussion... let's go and ask "Are White people inherently evil", "Is Christianity inherently evil"... here are the lists of why the Whiteys are evil - this White guy did this, that White guy did that... what an evil race of criminals! This priest did this, that bishop do that, its Bible say this and that... Woah! What an evil religion.

the question on the thread is not are Islamic people evil, It's "Islam: Is it inherently Evil"

I took the question to be asking are the doctrines of the faith Evil, I think that's a valid question to ask.

As I have stated, I think it is Evil, But so are all the religions I have encounted.

Offcourse asking "are all white people evil" would be silly, But asking "Are the polices of the British empire evil" would be a valid question,

Answering yes to that question is not saying that all members of the British empire are evil, just that its policies were.

luutzu · 7 November 2014

bellenuit said:
Is that the best you can come up with. I was referring to a group of 500 Muslims burning to death a Christian couple, the lady being pregnant, under the direction of a Mullah based on some trumped up blasphemy charge and you dismiss it off hand by saying I should watch Chomsky. Every time someone mentions some atrocity committed by Muslims or in the name of Islam, you seem unable to express any condemnation or acknowledgement that the act is horrific, but instead try to obfuscate by alluding to something Chomsky said or wrote.

For every crime committed in the name of Islam, I can assure you I can find another instance committed in the name of Christianity. I just don't want to do that because it's silly to condemn one religion and ignore crimes in another.

I've said it before, I'm an Atheist and do not believe in any god. But to insult another religion like that is just wrong on both moral and intellectual grounds. Feel free to do it, just it makes you look pretty silly, in my humble opinion.

luutzu · 7 November 2014

Value Collector said:
the question on the thread is not are Islamic people evil, It's "Islam: Is it inherently Evil"

I took the question to be asking are the doctrines of the faith Evil, I think that's a valid question to ask.

As I have stated, I think it is Evil, But so are all the religions I have encounted.

Offcourse asking "are all white people evil" would be silly, But asking "Are the polices of the british empire evil" would be a valid question,

I think it may have started out as questioning Islam, which I agree with you is a valid question and I think you've done a great job at answering that.

But it then evolve into using examples of terrorism and other atrocities done by some Muslims or done in the name of Islam... then pretty quickly it's whatever (bad things) any Muslim does represents all Muslims and Islam. That will then lead to it being any Muslim and any Arab are terrorists and are inherently evil.

SirRumpole · 7 November 2014

Value Collector said:
False hope though,...

Trouble is , you can't actually prove that, which is why the hope lives on.

I happen to believe that there is a God and an afterlife (for everyone), but I don't need the religious baggage.

If our future lives depend on the good or bad we have done in our past lives rather than what brand of God or not we decided to believe in, that's good enough for me.

Value Collector · 7 November 2014

SirRumpole said:
Trouble is , you can't actually prove that, which is why the hope lives on.

.

It's not up to me to disprove the existence of an afterlife, it's up to the believers to prove one exists.

But for me, there is far to much evidence that suggests our personality and consciousness, is a direct result of our brain function and no evidence that suggests our personality or consciousness could exist outside our brain, so believing either of them will survive the decay of my brain is not an option for me.

for billions of years before my brain formed I had no personality or consciousness, Why would I believe that I will have it after my brain has decayed away.

-----

This is not the thread for it, but I would like to hear you explain why you believe your mind will survive the death of your brain, perhaps the religion and science thread.

Also, do all of the 10,000,000 species of animals have an after life, or just humans? or just the animals with conscious brains? or just apes? and if its just the animals with brains, how does the consciousness survive outside the brain?

so many questions, I would like to discuss.

Tisme · 7 November 2014

Value Collector said:
What your talking about here is a wedding, not a marriage, your marriage probably existed before you wedding and hopefully long after it.

yes lived in sin for 4 or more years in a house we both built when I was 21. Loved her to bits right up to her passing away a little over 3 years ago....knocked the stuffing out of me and I still weep a tear for what we had ...she was my best friend and a cracker in the looks dept = bonus.

Weddings and bonded marriage suits many, but not me, the ties that bind should be worked on daily with love, affection, admiration and individualism celebrated to create 2 people power, not an absorption model so many couples seem to melt into.

Wysiwyg · 7 November 2014

luutzu said:
Watch that documentary above from PBS Frontline - Losing Iraq.

I appreciate your difference of opinion as it is thought provoking. In line with the thread topic and the post by Bellenuit of the mob burning of those three (one unborn) Pakistanis. Specifically, I condemn those actions perpetrated by this religion on those innocent people. To support these religious actions is not acceptable in this country. The goal is some future freer world.

I don't agree with the U.S. interventions and their attitude toward their own country folk. Documents set in stone (Constitution) should be debated and voted upon on a more regular basis. Particularly the right to bear arms and the fanatics that grieve not, as more school children get shot up. It borders insanity why nothing has been done to remove the free availability of guns in their society. Their 'international agenda' has obviously disturbed a hornet's nest and it is their self righteousness, arrogance and wanton intervention that irks people. Even angers people to perform hideous acts of violence in "retaliation".

There is defense on one hand and there is intimidation by forcing will on the other hand. But. And a big but. What would the world look like without the U.S. interventions around the world?

That made me un-Australian and I should go back to where I came from?

My comment about leaving the country concerns the religious fanatics pushing their fanatical religious agenda in Australia.

With regards to Australian politics. I thought me saying that the Australian poor, the Aussie battlers... me saying they're being screwed over is me being somewhat representative, or at least thinking of a fair portion of Australian and their interests.

Yea, my voice matters to those politicians. Just as the voices of millions of Australian families trying to make ends meet matter. Strange how a democracy where the people votes, and they presumably vote for their interests, yet somehow most policies benefit the rich and the powerful more and made the poor worst off. Strange ey? I guess the poor are just dumb... that or their voices aren't heard at all and they just have to take it... else pack up and leave.

Yes you are right. These people need a spokesperson or activist. It would be a different world with everyone getting what they want during their lifetime. The low cost of general education in Australia along with parental guidance is a great place to start.
Thankfully, and one of the reasons why people love living in Australia, is the wide expanse of land with more opportunity than any other country in the world to have a go.

Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

Tisme

Apathetic at Best

Value Collector

Have courage, and be kind.

Craton

Mostly passive, contrarian.

Craton

Mostly passive, contrarian.

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

Value Collector

Have courage, and be kind.

SirRumpole

Value Collector

Have courage, and be kind.

luutzu

Julia

In Memoriam

luutzu

luutzu

Value Collector

Have courage, and be kind.

Value Collector

Have courage, and be kind.

luutzu

luutzu

SirRumpole

Value Collector

Have courage, and be kind.

Tisme

Apathetic at Best

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

Similar threads

Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

Apathetic at Best

Have courage, and be kind.

Mostly passive, contrarian.

Mostly passive, contrarian.

Everyone wants money

Have courage, and be kind.

Have courage, and be kind.

In Memoriam

Have courage, and be kind.

Have courage, and be kind.

Have courage, and be kind.

Apathetic at Best

Everyone wants money

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency