Why I Can't Be Muslim

[pookie]

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
No, we Christians use it as an excuse to do “good”. However that may be construed.[/quote]

Why do you need an excuse to do good?

Wouldn’t you do good at all if it wasn’t for fear of eternal punishment?

And while some Christians do “do good” (just as some Muslims do); you can’t claim that all Christians use the Bible to do good.

Some use the Bible to oppose birth control, resulting in more STDs and more unwanted pregnancies.

Some use the Bible to oppress, harass, condemn homosexuals and to make sure they are ostracized and treated as second class citizens when what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is none of their business.

Some use the Bible to oppose embryonic stem cell research, thereby retarding treatments and cures who could save countless human lives. Their actions increase human suffering; it does not decrease it.

Some use the Bible to oppose the teaching of evolution in schools. They reject science, which they make no effort to understand, and want to “force” their collective ignorance on the rest of society. You end up with people who have no idea how to critically evaluate a claim and with large swath of the population who will waste time, money and sometimes their lives pursuing ridiculous ideas such as psychics, faith healers, health crystals, magnetic bracelets, etc.

Some also use the Bible to support the death penalty as apparently the “culture of life” does not apply after birth. They will oppose euthanasia, though. The driving logic is seemingly not about life, but about controlling the life of others and making their decisions for them.

Most use the Bible to create their “in-group” who are like-minded believers. Everyone outside gets labeled (foreigner, atheist, liberal, enemy, etc.) and is fair game to get discriminated against. From that you get stuff like “an american life is worth more than a foreigner’s”; “God is on our side”; indifference toward “enemy” casualties, etc.

Far from being “The Good Book”, the Bible is used to justify quite a bit of evil. Not all evil is as spectacular as flying airliners in buildings; but pernicious evil might be worse, since it goes undetected much more easily.

[pookie]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As a corollary to this point, the Qu’ran is accepted among Muslims to be the fixed, static, unerring word of Allah, without the flexibility of saying the text is allegorical, etc. (a la the Bible for many Christians).[/quote]

The Bible is treated the same way by most fundamentalists and evangelicals. When something is announced that contradicts the Bible (such as the age of the Earth or evolution) they reject it.

Dogmatism and fundamentalism is not the sole province of Muslims.

That said, there is an inherent incompatibility between modern recognition of gender equality and the Qu’ran - after all, the Qu’ran cannot ‘develop’ or ‘evolve’ with the times because of the static, flawless dictates of Allah’s word cannot be improved upon.

Neither can the Bible. In theory. The 7000 versions of it in existence prove me wrong on that point.

What does usually evolve or develop is the various interpretations of it.

That’s what give you the myriads of splinter groups, sects, cults, etc. in both Christianity and Islam.

Gender apartheid is the law in Islam, and Muslims are simply not permitted to reconsider that times have changed - this according to their own tenets, not mine or anyone else’s.

Christianity could be similar, if not for the fact that at some point, it learned to back off from some of its dogmatic positions. But you can’t deny that it fought valiantly against the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of women. Even today, many Christian denominations, the Catholics being the prime example, do not allow women to occupy any position of influence in the Church.

It’s pretty easy to call the kettle of Islam black, while sitting in the dark grey pot of Christianity.

[Hanzo]

[quote]pookie wrote:

It’s pretty easy to call the kettle of Islam black, while sitting in the dark grey pot of Christianity.
[/quote]

…or the jet black pot of atheism

[brucevangeorge]

[quote]Hanzo wrote:
…or the jet black pot of atheism[/quote]

Interesting. And this relates to the culture wars in what way?

[lixy]

[quote]pookie wrote:
You’ve learn your Koran well I see. Instead of asking why a divinely inspired book should be unjust and unfair; you try to justify its position from your own prejudices.[/quote]

I asked that question long before embracing Islam as a faith. It just happens that I found out that the good things in it supersede the ones that don’t seem so fair by today’s standards.

Because of that, you can say that I try to justify its prejudice because I have no doubt regarding its divine origin. I can go ahead and cite its poetry, scientific revelations and all sort of things which convinced me that it had to come from a greater being but I won’t. Some people cannot conceive that all this mess started on its own. I am one of them. The more I look into things. the more I am convinced that there has to be someOne out there that made the Earth, the universe and everything.

The existence of a supreme being is an age old debate that is unlikely to result in either of us conceding any grounds.

How does your emotionally unstable and borderline irrational mom like your views on women?

I didn’t mean to offend you or anything but I stand by that statement. I’m not so served into psychology or social sciences but there has to be some discipline that studies this. I’ll try to look it up and get back to you.

[quote]Don’t give me that crap. The human mind is well able to think about that and reach a conclusion based on reason and logic.

You don’t want to, but it’s not because you’re unable. You’re unwilling because of the comfort and security you derive from your belief. You don’t really care how valid they are, as long as they make you feel good.[/quote]

You’re suggesting that I am too weak mentally to challenge those beliefs. I started believing in the divine origin of the Quran about 5 years ago after quite a deal of research.

I can’t exclude the possibility of you being right about the comfort and security though. It’s not exactly a walk in the park (with all the praying, fasting and such), but it gives more meaning to life I suppose.

QM is not intuitive and does not conform to everyday experience, but the human mind can well accept its precepts.

“I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics.”
– Richard Feynman (Won the Nobel prize in physics 1965)

And QM is a nice example, because even if it is entirely counter-intuitive and hard to grasp, we have to recognize its validity. Why? Because when we test it, it works. It’s unfortunate that you can’t evaluate your beliefs based on the same rigorous mental process.

Exactly. That’s why such discussions will always being conjectural at best.

Instead of picking up on the absurdities, the contradictions, the intolerance and realizing that there’s no way such a work can be divinely inspired, you bend over backwards to make excuses and allowances to justify it.

I start with the assumption that there is a God. From there, it’s reasonable to assume that if He’s to judge us at some point, He must have tried to get in touch. The holy books are definitely onto something, and I’m just picking up the updated one.

And then complain when other people interpret it differently to justify their actions based on it. You’re both engaging in the same process; they just happened to do something violent enough to make the news.

I never seen it from that angle. I guess you’re right.

[pookie]

[quote]Hanzo wrote:
…or the jet black pot of atheism[/quote]

Atheists aren’t an organized religion. We don’t have dogma, tenets, doctrines… if an atheist is doing something wrong or immoral, you’re free to point it out and he won’t respond to it by quoting Scripture, or claiming that he’s obeying the will of a Divine Supreme Being.

Atheist can be amoral and do evil as any other human; they simply can’t hide behind their Holy Book - because there isn’t one - to justify it.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]pookie wrote:

The Bible is treated the same way by most fundamentalists and evangelicals. When something is announced that contradicts the Bible (such as the age of the Earth or evolution) they reject it.

Dogmatism and fundamentalism is not the sole province of Muslims.[/quote]

Nor was I suggesting such, hence my reference to many Christians.

[quote]Neither can the Bible. In theory. The 7000 versions of it in existence prove me wrong on that point.

What does usually evolve or develop is the various interpretations of it.[/quote]

Correct - and that is the entire point. Does the religion allow for such development, or does it prohibit it?

Christianity could be similar, if not for the fact that at some point, it learned to back off from some of its dogmatic positions.

Could be, but isn’t. Christianity and Islam are very different in scope and history.

But you can’t deny that it fought valiantly against the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of women. Even today, many Christian denominations, the Catholics being the prime example, do not allow women to occupy any position of influence in the Church.

Well, I haven’t denied that Christianity didn’t adhere to ‘bad things’ in our history, but that viewpoint fails to recognize the bigger picture - the general status of women, across cultures and religions, was that of inferiority. What religion has advanced along with this change in thinking that we now enjoy?

A better question is where is Christianity now on such questions, and how did it get there? And if it is in a better place than Islam, it is no accident.

Social Darwinism promoted some pretty awful theories on how to treat and evaluate human beings - but that can’t possibly be the yardstick by which we measure the Theory of Evolution.

As for Catholicism, that is an empty comparison, because Catholicism exists in largely secular Western cultures. Catholic women remain Catholics despite the church’s prohibition on female clergy - they can walk away of their own free will if they choose. The Catholic church doesn’t ‘oppress’ women - the church adheres to tradition, and do so under the blessing of its members who remain by virtue of choice.

[quote]It’s pretty easy to call the kettle of Islam black, while sitting in the dark grey pot of Christianity.
[/quote]

This misses the point - I never said Christianity had a perfect existence. What I am saying is that Christianity has had a Reformation, witnessed the Renaissance, and grew up with the Enlightenment. These advantages distinguish it from Islam in that as a religion, it can have a fair debate with and be compatible with modernity and changing times.

If Christianity doesn’t change fast enough for certain modern points of view, too bad - but Christianity is different from Islam, and to pretend otherwise is to misunderstand the importance of each religion’s history.

[pookie]

[quote]lixy wrote:
I asked that question long before embracing Islam as a faith. It just happens that I found out that the good things in it supersede the ones that don’t seem so fair by today’s standards.[/quote]

There’s good things in most Holy Books. There’s good things in many books about morals and ethics; there’s good things that can be learned from philosophy, etc.

There’s nothing outstandingly good in any of the Holy Books that can’t be found elsewhere, or that can’t be reasoned from the basic experience of being human.

Because of that, you can say that I try to justify its prejudice because I have no doubt regarding its divine origin.

How do you reconcile a divine being and prejudice? How can a god who would be all-good be able to order some of his creations to oppress or discriminate against other of his creations?

A lot of things that we consider evil, such as racism, slavery and torture are never condemned in the holy books. Worse, they have tacit or even outright support.

I can go ahead and cite its poetry, scientific revelations and all sort of things which convinced me that it had to come from a greater being but I won’t.

The poetry does not exceed the poetry of men; the scientific revelations are only so with a lot of assumptions and creative interpretations. Nothing in those books is knowledge that was unknown at the time it was written.

Those things are oft repeated by believers, but they do not hold under scrutiny.

And yet, it would’ve been so simple to put one scientific fact that wouldn’t have been known for a few thousand years… List the planets, explain heliocentrism, give Pi to 10 significant digits, etc.

Some people cannot conceive that all this mess started on its own. I am one of them. The more I look into things. the more I am convinced that there has to be someOne out there that made the Earth, the universe and everything.

That’s another debate. I find it odd that people who can’t conceive that the universe is self-existent have no problem with the self-existence of an even more complex being. It seems to add to the problem, rather than answer it.

Regardless, even if there is a creator, the question is: does he communicate with us? If he does, does he do it through the Bible? The Koran? The Talmud? The Veda?

Wouldn’t it have been preferable to make sure the printing press was invented before inspiring those texts?

The existence of a supreme being is an age old debate that is unlikely to result in either of us conceding any grounds.

Maybe. Yet, why can’t that question be discussed and analyzed? Is there a difference between a universe where a god exists and one where he doesn’t? If there is, how can we make the determination? If there isn’t, how can we know?

You’re suggesting that I am too weak mentally to challenge those beliefs.

I don’t think you’re too weak mentally; I think you lack the willpower.

I think your beliefs fill a need you have to think that something much greater than you, me and everything else is watching over you, listening to you and guiding you. The god of the Abrahamic religions is a powerful father figure.

I started believing in the divine origin of the Quran about 5 years ago after quite a deal of research.

What were you searching for?

I can’t exclude the possibility of you being right about the comfort and security though. It’s not exactly a walk in the park (with all the praying, fasting and such), but it gives more meaning to life I suppose.

Couldn’t you find a similar comfort in meditation? Wouldn’t all that time be better spent doing charity work? Helping in a homeless shelter? Donating time to some non-profit organization?

There are a lot of ways to “give meaning” to your life. For all the talks about religion being good and inciting people to do good I see a lot of talk, but little in way of backing it up.

For a simple example, just look at all the threads started that are about intolerance. People unloading on fat people; smokers; threads about road rage; illegal parking; about how dumb gym goers are etc. I’d bet that most of the participants in those threads are believers or would describe themselves as such. Yet I see very little tolerance, understanding, forgiveness and compassion.

[quote]“I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics.”
– Richard Feynman (Won the Nobel prize in physics 1965)[/quote]

“A witty saying proves nothing.”
– Voltaire.

Exactly. That’s why such discussions will always being conjectural at best.

Maybe. But again, why can’t questions of religion be evaluated using the same criteria we apply to other types of question? Why is religion afforded that “mystical respect” where you have to pretend that believing impossible stuff is acceptable? If someone tells you that his milkman delivers his milk everyday using a flying horse, you’ll laugh in his face. If someone tells you his prophet flew to heaven on a flying horse, you have to respect that.

I start with the assumption that there is a God.

Why? Why the assumption that there is, and not the one that there isn’t?

I’m not saying that you can’t start from either one, but I’m curious as to why you pick the “God exists” one.

From there, it’s reasonable to assume that if He’s to judge us at some point, He must have tried to get in touch.

Reasonable to assume… I’d disagree. You’re piling up the assumptions, none of which has any evidence.

1. God exists.
2. He has tried to contact us.
3. He will judge us.

I see no reason to think that 1 is true; but even if it was, what evidence is there for 2 and 3?

The holy books are definitely onto something, and I’m just picking up the updated one.

But what if Moses, Paul and Muhammad were simply the Joseph Smiths, L. Ron Hubbard or Claude Vorilhon of their time? If people can start religions in modern times, how much easier must it have been to do so a few thousand years ago.

I also don’t like much of the “updating” that Islam has done. The doctrines of jihad and martyrdom are rather scary to me.

I never seen it from that angle. I guess you’re right.

I won’t argue that one. :^)

[btm62]

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
Hanzo wrote:
…or the jet black pot of atheism

Interesting. And this relates to the culture wars in what way?[/quote]

About as much as Pookie’s ranting. Are you gonna poke at that one too?

[btm62]

[quote]pookie wrote:
lixy wrote:
I asked that question long before embracing Islam as a faith. It just happens that I found out that the good things in it supersede the ones that don’t seem so fair by today’s standards.

There’s good things in most Holy Books. There’s good things in many books about morals and ethics; there’s good things that can be learned from philosophy, etc.

There’s nothing outstandingly good in any of the Holy Books that can’t be found elsewhere, or that can’t be reasoned from the basic experience of being human.

Because of that, you can say that I try to justify its prejudice because I have no doubt regarding its divine origin.

How do you reconcile a divine being and prejudice? How can a god who would be all-good be able to order some of his creations to oppress or discriminate against other of his creations?

A lot of things that we consider evil, such as racism, slavery and torture are never condemned in the holy books. Worse, they have tacit or even outright support.

I can go ahead and cite its poetry, scientific revelations and all sort of things which convinced me that it had to come from a greater being but I won’t.

The poetry does not exceed the poetry of men; the scientific revelations are only so with a lot of assumptions and creative interpretations. Nothing in those books is knowledge that was unknown at the time it was written.

Those things are oft repeated by believers, but they do not hold under scrutiny.

And yet, it would’ve been so simple to put one scientific fact that wouldn’t have been known for a few thousand years… List the planets, explain heliocentrism, give Pi to 10 significant digits, etc.

Some people cannot conceive that all this mess started on its own. I am one of them. The more I look into things. the more I am convinced that there has to be someOne out there that made the Earth, the universe and everything.

That’s another debate. I find it odd that people who can’t conceive that the universe is self-existent have no problem with the self-existence of an even more complex being. It seems to add to the problem, rather than answer it.

Regardless, even if there is a creator, the question is: does he communicate with us? If he does, does he do it through the Bible? The Koran? The Talmud? The Veda?

Wouldn’t it have been preferable to make sure the printing press was invented before inspiring those texts?

The existence of a supreme being is an age old debate that is unlikely to result in either of us conceding any grounds.

Maybe. Yet, why can’t that question be discussed and analyzed? Is there a difference between a universe where a god exists and one where he doesn’t? If there is, how can we make the determination? If there isn’t, how can we know?

You’re suggesting that I am too weak mentally to challenge those beliefs.

I don’t think you’re too weak mentally; I think you lack the willpower.

I think your beliefs fill a need you have to think that something much greater than you, me and everything else is watching over you, listening to you and guiding you. The god of the Abrahamic religions is a powerful father figure.

I started believing in the divine origin of the Quran about 5 years ago after quite a deal of research.

What were you searching for?

I can’t exclude the possibility of you being right about the comfort and security though. It’s not exactly a walk in the park (with all the praying, fasting and such), but it gives more meaning to life I suppose.

Couldn’t you find a similar comfort in meditation? Wouldn’t all that time be better spent doing charity work? Helping in a homeless shelter? Donating time to some non-profit organization?

There are a lot of ways to “give meaning” to your life. For all the talks about religion being good and inciting people to do good I see a lot of talk, but little in way of backing it up.

For a simple example, just look at all the threads started that are about intolerance. People unloading on fat people; smokers; threads about road rage; illegal parking; about how dumb gym goers are etc. I’d bet that most of the participants in those threads are believers or would describe themselves as such. Yet I see very little tolerance, understanding, forgiveness and compassion.

“I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics.”
– Richard Feynman (Won the Nobel prize in physics 1965)

“A witty saying proves nothing.”
– Voltaire.

Exactly. That’s why such discussions will always being conjectural at best.

Maybe. But again, why can’t questions of religion be evaluated using the same criteria we apply to other types of question? Why is religion afforded that “mystical respect” where you have to pretend that believing impossible stuff is acceptable? If someone tells you that his milkman delivers his milk everyday using a flying horse, you’ll laugh in his face. If someone tells you his prophet flew to heaven on a flying horse, you have to respect that.

I start with the assumption that there is a God.

Why? Why the assumption that there is, and not the one that there isn’t?

I’m not saying that you can’t start from either one, but I’m curious as to why you pick the “God exists” one.

From there, it’s reasonable to assume that if He’s to judge us at some point, He must have tried to get in touch.

Reasonable to assume… I’d disagree. You’re piling up the assumptions, none of which has any evidence.

1. God exists.
2. He has tried to contact us.
3. He will judge us.

I see no reason to think that 1 is true; but even if it was, what evidence is there for 2 and 3?

The holy books are definitely onto something, and I’m just picking up the updated one.

But what if Moses, Paul and Muhammad were simply the Joseph Smiths, L. Ron Hubbard or Claude Vorilhon of their time? If people can start religions in modern times, how much easier must it have been to do so a few thousand years ago.

I also don’t like much of the “updating” that Islam has done. The doctrines of jihad and martyrdom are rather scary to me.

I never seen it from that angle. I guess you’re right.

I won’t argue that one. :^)
[/quote]

Pookie, you have a very nasty habit of telling everyone they are wrong, their thinking is wrong, and that anything based in faith or that cannot be proven by the scientific method is wrong and I submit to you that…is wrong.

Faith is fact of life for many people. Regardless of what faith you call it. Do you have a son? Do you have faith in him? Think about that. Against all practicality you want to believe very badly that he can achieve whatever it is he is attempting. Do you automatically reject his attempt at pullups or do you have faith? I know its simplistic, but that’s faith in a nutshell.

Some of us are hoping for something more beyond this world. Now that being said, I agree with much of what you are saying and have pondered these same things. However, I think I am humble enough not to think I could ever know the mind of God or his ways.

There are times my faith is tested, there are times it would be easier to join “your” crowd. My thinking isn’t wrong. It certainly is sometimes. So’s yours. We’re not perfect. Blanket statements like, “Your thinking is wrong” serve only to squelch dialogue. I don’t consider you a bad person either.

For what its worth. You can be frustrating at times as I’m sure I and others are to you. To tell someone your faith is folly is clearly as offensive as someone forcing their faith on you. Can we both be bigger than that?

[pookie]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Correct - and that is the entire point. Does the religion allow for such development, or does it prohibit it?[/quote]

I don’t think there is a hard and fast rule. If we want to generalize, I think we have to do so on the side of dogma and inflexibility. After all, the Word of God cannot be proven wrong. Doing so leads to doubt, leads to heresies and apostasies. All bad things to an organized religion.

The more fundamentalist the sect or religion X, the more they resist any change or any contradiction to “The Word.” So, while Catholics accept a doctrine of progressive revelation, and consider the writings of certain “Doctor of the Faith” like Thomas Aquinas to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and valid in clarifying difficult questions of faith, fundamentalist groups, such as the American Evangelicals and Born-Agains reject anything other than the Bible (Sola Scriptura) and moreover, interpret it literally.

I think Islam is currently a lot more fundamentalist than Christianity is. Yet, many sects and variation still exist. Progress (or change, as many variations seem to be lateral), on the rare occasions where they occur, seem to do so by schism.

Could be, but isn’t. Christianity and Islam are very different in scope and history.

Definitely. All religions are. The unfortunate thing is probably that while Christianity went through it’s “power mad” period (the crusades, the inquisition, aggressive missionary evangelization, etc) with dark age technology, or primitive firearms; Islam seems to be poised for a similar period but with WMD technology. Humanity might not survive very many Holy Wars when those types of weapons are being thrown around.

Well, I haven’t denied that Christianity didn’t adhere to ‘bad things’ in our history, but that viewpoint fails to recognize the bigger picture - the general status of women, across cultures and religions, was that of inferiority. What religion has advanced along with this change in thinking that we now enjoy?

You say it’s “advanced along with,” I think it’s pretty much been dragged kicking and screaming. There is a lot of the patriarchal dominance left in just about every Christian denomination.

A better question is where is Christianity now on such questions, and how did it get there? And if it is in a better place than Islam, it is no accident.

You seem to think that Christianity has welcomed all those changes, that progress. I don’t see it. What I see is a Church that grudgingly accepts le fait accompli when it becomes evident that trying to keep refuting it appears stupid to everyone else. You can only deny heliocentrism so long. Or evolution. At some point, the damage from appearing to be boneheaded fools exceeds that of “progressing the revelation.”

Social Darwinism promoted some pretty awful theories on how to treat and evaluate human beings - but that can’t possibly be the yardstick by which we measure the Theory of Evolution.

Social Darwinism has very little to do with evolution. Even the name is misleading, since most of the ideas of SD are not from Darwin. Evolution is concerned with biology, not sociology.

As for Catholicism, that is an empty comparison, because Catholicism exists in largely secular Western cultures. Catholic women remain Catholics despite the church’s prohibition on female clergy - they can walk away of their own free will if they choose. The Catholic church doesn’t ‘oppress’ women - the church adheres to tradition, and do so under the blessing of its members who remain by virtue of choice.

It’s not exactly an entirely free choice. Nowadays it might be easier, but for the previous generation, or the one before (and I’ll presume many, many other ones before that), there was enormous societal pressure to conform. “Leaving the faith” was simply not done.

This misses the point - I never said Christianity had a perfect existence. What I am saying is that Christianity has had a Reformation, witnessed the Renaissance, and grew up with the Enlightenment. These advantages distinguish it from Islam in that as a religion, it can have a fair debate with and be compatible with modernity and changing times.

Yes, for some particular denominations of Christianity. But that simply means that those sects (is there a better term?) are more compatible with a secular society. Islam could have similar events in the future, the sooner the better. And I’ll maintain that other sects of Christianity, the more fundamental ones, are just as incompatible with modern secular society as Islam is.

If Christianity doesn’t change fast enough for certain modern points of view, too bad - but Christianity is different from Islam, and to pretend otherwise is to misunderstand the importance of each religion’s history.

No one is saying that both religions are identical in every way, especially not at this point in time. But most of the criticism leveled at Islam would’ve applied to Christianity at various other times.

Arguing that Christianity is better suited for modern societies is defendable, but that doesn’t really help much in dealing with the 1.4 billion Muslims on the planet. I’m also doubtful on the approach of trying to get anyone to change his religion; I think progress will be made by giving up religion. It’s time to let go of thousand year old mythology when looking for “rules” on how to live with each other.

[brucevangeorge]

[quote]btm62 wrote:
About as much as Pookie’s ranting. Are you gonna poke at that one too?[/quote]

No. I agree with pretty much everything that pookie writes. It is written very well and it actually makes sense since he thinks about what he writes and supports it with proof.

Why would I poke fun at something like that? Poking fun at a rational man is lunacy by my standards.

-Bruce

[pookie]

[quote]btm62 wrote:
Pookie, you have a very nasty habit of telling everyone they are wrong, their thinking is wrong, and that anything based in faith or that cannot be proven by the scientific method is wrong and I submit to you that…is wrong.[/quote]

My main problem with faith is that it allows for anything to be believed as being true. The Sumerian gods were true to the Sumerians, just as the Egyptian gods were to the Egyptian.

Science is simply a method we’ve figured out that allows us to discern truth from falsehood. It helps us really understand how the world works. Yes, I know there are things that science, at least the hard, physical one, can’t help us with. Things like love, justice, compassion, etc. But when I look at religion, I find that most of them do not really help that much with those concepts either. They tend to reflect old cultural views.

Faith is fact of life for many people. Regardless of what faith you call it. Do you have a son? Do you have faith in him? Think about that.

Faith has more than one meaning. I have faith in my son in the sense that I have confidence in him, I trust him.

The other meaning of faith, the one with which I have trouble, is the one that says I must accept as true something for which there is no evidence. Most religions even uplift that fact as something good. Having faith, believing without proof, is a good thing. If it is really so, how do you discriminate among all the unsupported beliefs you could hold?

I might be more inclined to accept it if there was some common undercurrent to all religions, but there is very little they tend to agree about. They can’t all be right. Is it then more likely that they’re all wrong but one? Or simply that they’re all wrong?

Against all practicality you want to believe very badly that he can achieve whatever it is he is attempting. Do you automatically reject his attempt at pullups or do you have faith?

I’ll let him try his pullup (he’s 3), and even root for him. But if he tries to jump off the second story balcony to fly, I’ll stop him. No matter how much faith you have, I’ll bet you’d do the same.

I know its simplistic, but that’s faith in a nutshell.

Some of us are hoping for something more beyond this world.

Why? Why not enjoy this world; try to make the best of it; improve it if possible and deal with the next world when get there. No one’s coming back from that bridge anyhow.

Now that being said, I agree with much of what you are saying and have pondered these same things. However, I think I am humble enough not to think I could ever know the mind of God or his ways.

For it to be a mind of God, there first have to be a God. This “special respect” afforded to religion, belief and spirituality of all kind is undeserved. If there is a God and it’s his will that we be here and able to reason, I’ll bet on the fact that he won’t hold it against us if we try to use our reason to find him and know him. And if we reasonably think that he’s not there, I don’t think he’d hold our honesty against us if it turns out we’re wrong.

There are times my faith is tested, there are times it would be easier to join “your” crowd.

It’s a damn thin crowd, let me tell you.

My thinking isn’t wrong. It certainly is sometimes. So’s yours. We’re not perfect. Blanket statements like, “Your thinking is wrong” serve only to squelch dialogue. I don’t consider you a bad person either.

No one’s perfect. And I don’t mean that all your thinking is wrong. Let me rephrase: I disagree with your conclusion on that particular point because I think your conclusion is reached in spite of reason instead of because of it.

For what its worth. You can be frustrating at times as I’m sure I and others are to you.

Only because I have to explain over and over again… :^)

To tell someone your faith is folly is clearly as offensive as someone forcing their faith on you. Can we both be bigger than that?

Well, we could entirely respect the other’s position and leave it at that. There won’t be much discussion, though.

Religion is a subject that tends to inspire passion in people; it’s hard to discuss it while remaining entirely detached. My position is probably easier; it’s hard to ridicule “lack of belief” or to laugh at our non-existing atheist traditions.

[stellar_horizon]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Eventually people end up choosing the parts they like and living according to those.

The Bible might be a lot of things, but “The Truth?” Not even close.
[/quote]
Sinners we all are. Repent we must. Your bias against the Christian Faith is not based on evidence, it is based on the lack thereof. As much as you may dislike this fact, the New Testament stands up to the test of time through historical scrutiny and archaeological research. Disclaiming it’s potential to encompass the truth is feeble and close minded. Although I do agree that, sadly, heretical factions pick & choose what parts of the Faith they shall obey and discard.

Hence my emphasis on following the source of proper spiritual guidance (Orthodox Christianity) rather than simply Her “pamphlet” (the Bible).

www.fatheralexander.org/page6.htm

Peace be with all.

[pookie]

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Sinners we all are. Repent we must.[/quote]

In the house, Yoda is.

Your bias against the Christian Faith is not based on evidence, it is based on the lack thereof.

As is your bias against all other faiths.

As much as you may dislike this fact, the New Testament stands up to the test of time through historical scrutiny and archaeological research.

Many stories are set in existing geographical settings and borrow elements of known history. In no way does that give the fictitious parts any reality or existence.

Disclaiming it’s potential to encompass the truth is feeble and close minded.

Since you’re privy to the truth, could you enlighten us on what is the proper place of women in society? In clergy? How do they compare to men, are we equal?

We’ve been discussing this point, and women, apparently, can’t get a break. They’re worth, at best, half a man, have little future earning potential and are unstable and borderline irrational. Seems Eve was not God’s best effort.

Although I do agree that, sadly, heretical factions pick & choose what parts of the Faith they shall obey and discard.

Well, you’re just a member of someone else’s heretical faction; why is your sect the enlightened one?

Hence my emphasis on following the source of proper spiritual guidance (Orthodox Christianity) rather than simply Her “pamphlet” (the Bible).

More dogma. Still no evidence.

[Headhunter]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Why is religion afforded that “mystical respect” where you have to pretend that believing impossible stuff is acceptable? If someone tells you that his milkman delivers his milk everyday using a flying horse, you’ll laugh in his face. If someone tells you his prophet flew to heaven on a flying horse, you have to respect that.

[/quote]

People are easier to rule, if you can convince them to suspend their rationality and scepticism.

They can be convinced that no one can truly know anything, all morality is relative. Thus, those who promote that view can get away with their agenda.

Excellent thread gents! Carry on!

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]pookie wrote:

The more fundamentalist the sect or religion X, the more they resist any change or any contradiction to “The Word.” So, while Catholics accept a doctrine of progressive revelation, and consider the writings of certain “Doctor of the Faith” like Thomas Aquinas to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and valid in clarifying difficult questions of faith, fundamentalist groups, such as the American Evangelicals and Born-Agains reject anything other than the Bible (Sola Scriptura) and moreover, interpret it literally.[/quote]

You keep referring back to this - but no one is disputing it. There are Biblical inerrantists - we all recognize that.

[quote]Definitely. All religions are. The unfortunate thing is probably that while Christianity went through it’s “power mad” period (the crusades, the inquisition, aggressive missionary evangelization, etc) with dark age technology, or primitive firearms;
Islam seems to be poised for a similar period but with WMD technology. Humanity might not survive very many Holy Wars when those types of weapons are being thrown around.[/quote]

And this speaks to the larger point - Christianity came out of such a phase because it had inherent tools to do so. Islam does not currently.

But even if humanity had no religion to speak of to spark ‘Holy Wars’, it would have plenty of wars outside of religion to fight. There seems to be a current theme among atheists - not necessarily you - that somehow religion causes all kinds of these human calamities and if only we could get rid of religion, we’d be rid of the calamities.

To which I say nonsense - the cause is humanity, not religion. Oceans of blood flowed in the 20th century from non-religious regimes. The French Revolution slaughtered thousands of innocents, all in the name of ‘secular Progress’.

Why bother explaining that? Because the real catalyst behind the mayhem is humanity’s inherent savagery and tragic nature. So what can put a brake on that savagery? Religion is one institution that can. So is reason.

I don’t envision a world without either, because on balance, both have a civilizing effect on humanity. Others may whine about the ‘mixed record’ of religion - that with the good, there is a lot of bad - my answer to that is that a mixed record is about the best we can hope for given our human constraints. And that goes for a world based on Reason, as well.

And, as such, any religion that fails to work its good - responsibility to a higher order, moral precepts - in the context of continuing to civilize its people - human rights, peace and prosperity - deserves condemnation.

You say it’s “advanced along with,” I think it’s pretty much been dragged kicking and screaming. There is a lot of the patriarchal dominance left in just about every Christian denomination.

I don’t disagree with that, but it extends beyond the boundaries of the Christian religion. Plus, I don’t really go for the whole “there is a linear arrow of Progress trying to march forward and dark forces are holding it back.”

As for ‘kicking and screaming’, I am not sure it is quite that polarized a distinction. The church was engaged early in scientific discovery and Christianity had a number of ideas that advanced the cause of women. And, don’t forget our own history, where Christianity and Divine Providence were used to argue against chattel slavery and denial of voting rights.

Again, the mixed bag. There is not one heroic movement of progress while the rest are all enemies of the good.

You seem to think that Christianity has welcomed all those changes, that progress. I don’t see it. What I see is a Church that grudgingly accepts le fait accompli when it becomes evident that trying to keep refuting it appears stupid to everyone else. You can only deny heliocentrism so long. Or evolution. At some point, the damage from appearing to be boneheaded fools exceeds that of “progressing the revelation.”

Then evaluate history. Christianity has welcomed some changes, resisted others, and actually been the catalyst for yet others.

Social Darwinism has very little to do with evolution. Even the name is misleading, since most of the ideas of SD are not from Darwin. Evolution is concerned with biology, not sociology.

Yes, and the distinction you are making - the same one I did in that I said Social Darwinism is not the measure of Evolution itself, despite the label - is one that can be applied to Christian denominations.

It’s not exactly an entirely free choice. Nowadays it might be easier, but for the previous generation, or the one before (and I’ll presume many, many other ones before that), there was enormous societal pressure to conform. “Leaving the faith” was simply not done.

But what does that have to do with Christianity? Are you telling me the pews of Protestant churches have been essentially empty since Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the door of the church? Despite all these pressures you talk about, plenty of people have left the Catholic church.

If there be social pressure to conform, that is a different problem. That doesn’t equate to oppression.

And I’ll maintain that other sects of Christianity, the more fundamental ones, are just as incompatible with modern secular society as Islam is.

That seems an odd claim, as I don’t see many fundamentalists calling for a repeal of the 19th Amendment. Now, many fundamentalists oppose good science that is sitting right in front of their face that was deciphered by God-given reason, but few Christian fundamentalists go to the lengths that Islamic fundemantalists do in rejecting modern society.

No one is saying that both religions are identical in every way, especially not at this point in time. But most of the criticism leveled at Islam would’ve applied to Christianity at various other times.

So what?

Arguing that Christianity is better suited for modern societies is defendable, but that doesn’t really help much in dealing with the 1.4 billion Muslims on the planet. I’m also doubtful on the approach of trying to get anyone to change his religion; I think progress will be made by giving up religion. It’s time to let go of thousand year old mythology when looking for “rules” on how to live with each other.

I don’t think it helps much with the 1.4 billion Muslims on the planet, but I do think it important to recognize the distinction so that we - the collective we - can move past this idea that Islam is a normal, healthy religion that promotes all the things we want out of a modern society but we just won’t let it. It doesn’t. That wasn’t necessarily your contention, but one on this thread.

And many try and buttress that indefensible idea by making relativist arguments that “yeah, well, Christianity ain’t no better than Islam”, all the while trying to come up with some other explantion for the failure of worldwide Muslims to emerge from the Dark Ages.

Now that said, you view religion as a bad root of evil in the world. I disagree on that point - I think religion is like anything mankind has ever handled: it is imperfect. But it does far more good than harm, and religions aren’t the same, just as the cultures they grew up in are not the same.

My original point - going back several posts - is that Christianity has the flexibility to be modern by its own internal lights, and that Islam, by virtue of its own tenets, cannot accommodate modernity.

In other words, Christianity can bend to be modern - Islam must break to be modern.

[rugbyhit]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
etaco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Women can go topless in NY.

Seriously? I need to start a campaign to free all those women-- or at least the hot ones-- from the oppressive social mores which deprive me, er, them of their freedom and liberty.

Then I shall move to New York. Unless too many of the wrong women through off their chains/shirts. Some people really do belong in a burka.

In a landmark case in New York, seven women were arrested in 1986 for going topless in a park. The women, dubbed Rochester’s Topfree Seven, challenged the law that stated women could bare their breasts for “entertainment” purposes only.

Six years later, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that women could be topless in public in that state.

[/quote]

I live in Rochester. My buddies and I went to the park during the protest, to see history in the making.

We wanted to poke our eyes out when it was all said and done.

Strangly, ever since the protest, you will be hard pressed to see a topless women anywhere in the county.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]rugbyhit wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
etaco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Women can go topless in NY.

Seriously? I need to start a campaign to free all those women-- or at least the hot ones-- from the oppressive social mores which deprive me, er, them of their freedom and liberty.

Then I shall move to New York. Unless too many of the wrong women through off their chains/shirts. Some people really do belong in a burka.

In a landmark case in New York, seven women were arrested in 1986 for going topless in a park. The women, dubbed Rochester’s Topfree Seven, challenged the law that stated women could bare their breasts for “entertainment” purposes only.

Six years later, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that women could be topless in public in that state.

I live in Rochester. My buddies and I went to the park during the protest, to see history in the making.

We wanted to poke our eyes out when it was all said and done.

Strangly, ever since the protest, you will be hard pressed to see a topless women anywhere in the county.[/quote]

I grew up there and I saw pics of the women. Not pretty.

[lixy]

[quote]pookie wrote:
A lot of things that we consider evil, such as racism, slavery and torture are never condemned in the holy books. Worse, they have tacit or even outright support.[/quote]

“And mankind is naught but a single nation.”
– Quran 2:213

“And if any of your slaves ask you for a deed in writing (for emancipation) give them such a deed; If ye knew any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you?” – Quran 24:33

Of course, the Hadith is much more explicit in this context, but I thought I’d quote a non-Muslim for a change;

“The Europeans in South Africa dread the advent of Islam, as they( Muslims)
claim equality with the white races. They may well dread it. If brotherhood
is a sin, if it is equality of the coloured races that they dread, then
their dread is well-founded.”
– M. K. Ghandi

Regardless, even if there is a creator, the question is: does he communicate with us? If he does, does he do it through the Bible? The Koran? The Talmud? The Veda?

That’s the idea. The Talmud and Veda however, do not belong in the list. Try the Tanakh.

Maybe. Yet, why can’t that question be discussed and analyzed?

Oh, of course it can. In fact, it should. However, I don’t think I will be able to sustain such a dialog as I know none of us will budge an inch from his position.

Is there a difference between a universe where a god exists and one where he doesn’t? If there is, how can we make the determination? If there isn’t, how can we know?

Is there a difference in the behavior of an atom or electron depending if you’re observing it or not? Yes, there is. Can we determine whether Schrodinger’s cat is alive or dead? No, we can’t. It’s usually the frame of mind I put myself into when dealing with such issues.

For most people assuming a universe where God doesn’t exist is paradoxical since somebody had to be there to create it in the first place.

Couldn’t you find a similar comfort in meditation? Wouldn’t all that time be better spent doing charity work? Helping in a homeless shelter? Donating time to some non-profit organization?

One doesn’t exclude the other. As a matter of fact, most religions highly encourage such things. And, just for the record, I’m active in a couple of NGOs.

There are a lot of ways to “give meaning” to your life. For all the talks about religion being good and inciting people to do good I see a lot of talk, but little in way of backing it up.

It’s a choice. A subjective one.

[quote]“A witty saying proves nothing.”
– Voltaire.[/quote]

You’re being unfair here. There was nothing witty about my quote.

The guy was a worldwide authority in the subject of quantum mechanics and acknowledges the limit of the human mind to understand it. My professor gave a couple more quotes that go along that path from prominent physicists.

[quote]Why? Why the assumption that there is, and not the one that there isn’t?

I’m not saying that you can’t start from either one, but I’m curious as to why you pick the “God exists” one.[/quote]

I’m glad you asked. I gave that a thought back in the days. I actually started from “doesn’t exist” but ended up with too many unanswered questions as well as inconsistencies in the origin of the universe and the meaning of life…

Then I realized that most men believe in His existence. From there, it was only common sense to assume that the majority was more likely to be right than a tiny fraction.

And then, there’s always Voltaire’s cynic approach which I’m sure you’re familiar with.

If people can start religions in modern times, how much easier must it have been to do so a few thousand years ago.

The abundance of divinities preceding monotheistic religions should suffice to answer that. Hmmm…I guess I just made your argument stronger.

You don’t believe in God, and it’s fine by me as long as you don’t make generalisations or false accusations about my faith.

Some people don’t like brussel sprouts. Others go crazy over them. Religion is like that.