Holy texts should be respected by scholars

[S.A.M.]

You may roll thine eyes, but that does not preclude the fact that what you said is hypocritical.

Actually they were your rolled eyes; I just used them.

I don't consider myself an authority on Islam, I seriously doubt anyone can make that claim for any religion. Didn't you say yourself that religion is open for interpretation?

And of course, its been shown time and again that most here who disagree with religion are far more knowledgable on it than most theists who attempt to defend it.

You mean what they have in common with fundamentalists is a selective interpretation of of a few verses, ignoring the rest of the hundreds that make up the entire philosophy.

And, as has been shown time and again with Islam and every other religion, people tend to ignore the blatant contradictions of their religion, as you have done. This has nothing to do with misremembering/misinterpretation and everything to do with cotradictions.

And judging by your response, you are once again ignoring those contradictions.

See previous comment

I see, you wish to chase your tail again. Islamic states IS the correct answer, the one and only answer. And it is shocking that you accept such a barbaric doctrine as a way of life.

Yes I can imagine you are pretty shocked.

Funny, I thought it was common knowledge? Perhaps not so under Islamic rule?

Why don't you tell me?

From the link:

"Natural selection has outfitted males with the tools for success in male-male competition, much of it violent.

Among vertebrates in particular, males tend to be relatively large, conspicuous in color and behavior, and endowed with intimidating weapons (tusks, fangs, claws, antlers, etc.) and a willingness to employ them, largely because such traits were rewarded, over evolutionary time, with enhanced reproductive success.

At the same time, since the sex ratio is one to one, for every harem master, there are 39 disappointed bachelors. As a result, some males will be immensely successful and others will be failures.

In addition, the greater the difference in reproductive payoff (variance in numbers of offspring), the greater the difference in aggressiveness among males. With reproductive success more variable, males are more competitive.

Before the cultural homogenization that came with Judeo-Christian colonial (and marital) doctrine, polygyny was the preferred marital system for more than 80 percent of human societies.

Larger size and heightened aggressiveness were likely to lead to more surviving children, especially in the long evolutionary childhood of the human species.

Reproduction, after all, lies at the root of why living things live, and why they seek to dominate.

This is not to claim that females aren't aggressive in their own way. There are interesting cases of vigorous female-female competition in animals... I predict, in fact, that further research will reveal that female-female competition among animals is more widespread than currently recognized.

When it comes to the most serious violent crime, homicide, men are far and away the most frequent perpetrators. They are also most likely to be the victims, precisely as evolutionary theory predicts.

Thus, even though a 13th-century Englishman was 20 times more likely to be murdered than an Englishman is today...

From an evolutionary perspective, therefore, it is not surprising that young men, especially those from disadvantaged social and ethnic groups, are overrepresented among drug addicts, violent criminals, prisoners, and death-row inmates. And that angry and alienated men make up the overwhelming majority of violent terrorists.

So people grow up that way, it is claimed, meeting the expectations that society imposes on them.

All of the above is not meant to imply that biology is the sole explanation for the gender gap in human violence. We cannot do a thing about our evolutionary bequeathal; hence, we had better do all we can to ameliorate those conditions that predispose people to violence."

Religion would be a good start as it has nothing to do with the evolutionary instincts of human reproduction, but instead provides reasons to commit violent acts.

Interesting how you focus on the one line which suits your purpose.

Considering you place so much value on the validity of scientific research:

"The purpose of Mr. Wrangham and Mr. Peterson is to argue for evolutionary continuity of male violence from apes (or earlier ancestors) to humans, and to use a similar kind of Darwinian explanation to understand male violence in all these species. Of course, human violence has cultural causes too, and these authors sensibly dismiss the simple biology-culture division. Thus, the high homicide rate in American, as compared to European, cities, has an obvious nonbiological cause -- guns. But homicide rates in different societies have a rather constant sex ratio (men kill at about 20 times the rate that women do) and age-distribution profile, even though the absolute rates vary more than a thousandfold. It is tempting to see an evolutionary signal in those regularities, notwithstanding cultural variation."

"We have been so unsuccessful in controlling violence, and the problem is so important, that it is foolish to ignore any clues, particularly if they come from a theory as well worked out as evolution. Evolutionary theory also suggests factors that influence the level of violence. The genetic relatedness between individuals is about the first thing an evolutionary theorist would look at, but it was ignored until 1988, when two evolutionists turned to the problem."

Demonic males

Yet, you whole-heartedly accept those results since you accept your religion and have claimed to have found no contradictions.

Now you are doing my thinking for me too; pretty soon I'll be completely superfluous. How nice.

The plot thickens.

Very well, when will Muslims be doing so?



Hence, the failure of the religion.

They are trying; unfortunately they are not interesting as the terrorists.

HA! Martin also had this quote to offer:

"Education is the process of driving a set of prejudices down your throat."

Why am I not surprised that you know this one?

Religious wars?

If your opinions are driven by religious dogma, how credible are they? If you claim that religion is interpretive, then your opinions are based on YOUR personal interpretations of that religion. In other words, they are only valid with those who agree with your personal interpretations, hence not valid with other members of your faith who don't, members of any other faiths and those who have no faith at all - a very large percentage of the population.

As compared to atheism which has a world wide following?

Education, pure and simple.

And this pure and simple education would be determined by?

The point is to show that you whole-heartedly accept your religion as true and that you find no contradictions in interpretive doctrines that show glaring contradictions, which up to now, you've refused to acknowledge. And even though you now appear to be acknowledging them, you continue to defend your religion and are now accepting those contradictions. What's worse, is that you also accept the barbaric nature of those doctrines as if they were perfectly natural.

You accept the killing of apostates.
You accept the violence of your religion and the wars generated by it.
You accept the past campaigns and wars that provided the fundamental building blocks of your religion.

There there, its off your chest now. You must feel vindicated, having proven what an evil duplicitous creature I am. You'll finally be able to sleep at night. Don't forget to change out of the superhero costume.

 

[S.A.M.]

Q:

So violence is all religions fault?

 

[(Q)]

You mean what they have in common with fundamentalists is a selective interpretation of of a few verses, ignoring the rest of the hundreds that make up the entire philosophy.

Being very new here, you didn't read the past several years of arguments in which many atheists here began to read and understand the Quran, as well as other doctrines of Islam. An event occured almost 5 years ago which initiated that process for many of us, do you remember that event?

See previous comment

A moot comment.

But, maybe some of your own kind could better explain it:

"What is our goal?

We are apostates of Islam. We denounce Islam as a false doctrine of hate and terror. However we are not against Muslims who are our own kin and relatives. We do not advocate hate and violence. Muslims are the main victims of Islam. Our goal is to educate them and let them see the truth. We are against Islam and not the Muslims. We strive to bring the Muslims into the fold of humanity. Eradicate Islam so our people can be liberated, so they can prosper and break away from the pillory of Islam. We would like to see Islamic countries dedicate more time to science and less time to Quran and Sharia. We would like to see them prosper and contribute to human civilization. We would like to see the draconian laws of Islam eliminated and people are treated humanely. We strive for freedom of beliefs, for equality of gender and for oneness of mankind."

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

Yes I can imagine you are pretty shocked.

Hence, since you completely accept the atrocities of your religion, you are part of the problem and not the solution. You're opinions are based on the atrocities of your religion, as you nonchanlantly sweep those atrocities under the carpet hoping no one will notice.

Shameful, really.

Why don't you tell me?

Perhaps others could tell you:

"Who we are:

We are ex-Muslims. Some of us were born and raised in Islam and some of us had converted to Islam at some moment in our lives. We were taught never to question the truth of Islam and to believe in Allah and his messenger with blind faith. We were told that Allah would forgive all sins but the sin of disbelief (Quran 4:48 and 4:116). But we committed the ultimate sin of thinking and questioned the belief that was imposed on us and we came to realize that far from being a religion of truth, Islam is a hoax, it is hallucination of a sick mind and nothing but lies and deceits."

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

Interesting how you focus on the one line which suits your purpose.

I didn't, I focused on the other paragraphs and quoted them, but emphasized the conclusion.

Considering you place so much value on the validity of scientific research:

(men kill at about 20 times the rate that women do) and age-distribution profile, even though the absolute rates vary more than a thousandfold.

The previous article you linked suggested a 3-4:1 ratio, now you bring another article claiming 20 times the rate. Your research appears somewhat incompatible.

We have been so unsuccessful in controlling violence

Religion has failed. It's time for something new. How about education?

Now you are doing my thinking for me too; pretty soon I'll be completely superfluous. How nice.

They were your words, are you now claiming something else? Backpeddling?

Why am I not surprised that you know this one?

Because it's utter BS, as was his previous quote.

As compared to atheism which has a world wide following?

Ah yes, the Argumentum ad Populum. Let's all jump on the Islamic bandwagon - everyones doing it!

And this pure and simple education would be determined by?

By the same educational standards now accepted the world over. I would doubt that mathematics in one country will be any different than another.

How about this:

"Mankind’s biggest challenge:

Today the humanity is facing a great danger. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise and the hatred is brewing in the minds of millions of Muslims. This hatred must be contained or there would be disastrous consequences. We believe that the education is the only answer."

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

There there, its off your chest now. You must feel vindicated, having proven what an evil duplicitous creature I am.

Not really, indoctrination into a religion is very effective. It allows literally anyone to justify doing harm to others over the most trivial of matters, even nice people such as yourself.

But, there are those who break the cycle of indoctrination:

"Why Mohammed was not a prophet:

One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives and their “right hand possessions” (Quran 33:50)"

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

 

[S.A.M.]

Here's something interesting for you

The site http://www.apostatesofislam.com/ links to its main site isis (http://www.secularislam.org/) which is run by Irfan Khwaja and Ibn Wirraq, also members of Jihadwatch.org (http://www.jihadwatch.org/), the director of which is Robert Spencer , who is (guess what?) a Christian! And he currently runs the site with Christians, Jews and atheists (moonlighting, (Q)?).

"I have not performed an exhausive survey of all of Spencer's "works". However, in his Guide for Catholics, I did find the following that I think provides an interesting insight into Spencer's view of Islam :

Islam itself is an incomplete, misleading, and often downright false revelation which, in many ways, directly contradicts what God has revealed through the prophets of the Old Testament and through his Son Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh... For several reasons... Islam constitutes a threat to the world at large.

You are free to draw your own conclusions about his biases."

http://watchjihadwatch.blogspot.com/

 

[lightgigantic]

From Q -How about this:

"Mankind’s biggest challenge:

Today the humanity is facing a great danger. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise and the hatred is brewing in the minds of millions of Muslims. This hatred must be contained or there would be disastrous consequences. We believe that the education is the only answer."

Erm ..... Q? Have you ever been to a muslim country before?

The only reason Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise is because they have a symbiotic relationship with western gov't - draconian western gov't requires terrorists so they can maintain the support of voters and fundamentalists require conservative countries to wage war on them so they can get an unlimited supply of martyrs. in other words its a social phenomena that the media blows out as religious (something the above statement fuels ...). Instead of answering the questions related to foreign troop deployment in anothers country (which is a social/political issue) they deflect it and say "well to answer this you have to look at god"

 

[S.A.M.]

From Q -How about this:

"Mankind’s biggest challenge:

Today the humanity is facing a great danger. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise and the hatred is brewing in the minds of millions of Muslims. This hatred must be contained or there would be disastrous consequences. We believe that the education is the only answer."

Erm ..... Q? Have you ever been to a muslim country before?

The only reason Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise is because they have a symbiotic relationship with western gov't - draconian western gov't requires terrorists so they can maintain the support of voters and fundamentalists require conservative countries to wage war on them so they can get an unlimited supply of martyrs. in other words its a social phenomena that the media blows out as religious (something the above statement fuels ...). Instead of answering the questions related to foreign troop deployment in anothers country (which is a social/political issue) they deflect it and say "well to answer this you have to look at god"

Thanks lightgigantic, I too believe that current surge in Islamic terrorism is a political and not a religious phenomena.

Here is an excellent article by Robert Elias, which elaborates on the rise of Islamic fundamentalism

http://www.tanbou.com/2001/fall/USForeignPolicyElias.htm

 

[KennyJC]

If it has nothing to do with religion, then would there still be the SAME amount of terrorism if most people in the Middle East woke up atheist tommorrow?

I doubt it.

edit: Have there been any atheist suicide bombers btw?

 

[lightgigantic]

Not sure what you are asking - I mean if a culture or society is particularly religious the suggestion that they wake up the next morning as an atheistic poulation is a bit of a rhetorical statement - Its just like saying that america wake up tommorrow and cease to be interested in recreational sex. In other words such a radical change, if it were to happen at all would be very gradual - and in the course of that gradual change other social issues would present themselves. I mean they would probably still question what foreign troops were doing tearing through their streets in AV's - just like americans, or anyone really, would probably be curious in the same way in a reversed situation

 

[S.A.M.]

If it has nothing to do with religion, then would there still be the SAME amount of terrorism if most people in the Middle East woke up atheist tommorrow?

I doubt it.

I don't know, would they still have oil?

hmm, Kuwait does not have any terrorists, do they?

And Saudi Arabia, inspite of the fact that the terrorists originated there, was there ever even any thought of an action against it?

Why? Wouldn't have anything to do with its oil contracts, does it?

What about Iraq? Who put Saddam in power?

Not to mention the dictator in Iran, who put him in power, removing the democratically elected president only because he negotiated oil prices?

Who sold WMD to both Iraq and Iran?

Who funded the mujahideen and the Taliban?

Where did Osama get his training and by whom?

edit: Have there been any atheist suicide bombers btw?

Have there been atheist countries?


Lets see: Atheist government would be one with no religious beliefs held by those in power, right?

USSR?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/affirmative_atheism.html

"There can be no doubt but that Atheism is the reason for the success of Communism. Atheism is the force that brought the Russian nation up from being one of the most backward, primitive and religious nations in Europe in 1917, to the point of being one of the most advanced, scientific and technological, nations in the world today, Whether we like it or not, we must admit that Communist Russia is a powerful modern force, and a very dangerous potential enemy."


How about death count of USSR?
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM


China-
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE2.HTM

What do you think?

 

[KennyJC]

Not sure what you are asking - I mean if a culture or society is particularly religious the suggestion that they wake up the next morning as an atheistic poulation is a bit of a rhetorical statement - Its just like saying that america wake up tommorrow and cease to be interested in recreational sex. In other words such a radical change, if it were to happen at all would be very gradual - and in the course of that gradual change other social issues would present themselves. I mean they would probably still question what foreign troops were doing tearing through their streets in AV's - just like americans, or anyone really, would probably be curious in the same way in a reversed situation

Ok, point taken. If they were atheist by slow gradual process would we still see 'terrorism' suicide bombing etc on a similar scale?

I don't know, would they still have oil?
hmm, Kuwait does not have any terrorists, do they?
And Saudi Arabia, inspite of the fact that the terrorists originated there, was there ever even any thought of an action against it?
Why? Wouldn't have anything to do with its oil contracts, does it?
What about Iraq? Who put Saddam in power?
Not to mention the dictator in Iran, who put him in power, removing the democratically elected president only because he negotiated oil prices?
Who sold WMD to both Iraq and Iran?
Who funded the mujahideen and the Taliban?
Where did Osama get his training and by whom?

We have been through all this before samcdkey... and no doubt the west has a lot to answer for politically. However the question was regarding religious extremism in the Middle East. The above has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked. You simply evaded my question with something totally irrelevant.

Lets see: Atheist government would be one with no religious beliefs held by those in power, right?

An 'Atheist' government is nothing more than a dictatorship. This can't be compared to secular democracies as dictatorship of any kind is obviously not a rational or a good thing. It is therefor not the people of a dictatorship who can be questioned, but only the government.

I am not referring to government in the west or the Middle East, I am referring to the actions of PEOPLE in countries filled with strongly religious people.

The questions raised in my last post have yet to be answered directly.

 

[S.A.M.]

We have been through all this before samcdkey... and no doubt the west has a lot to answer for politically. However the question was regarding religious extremism in the Middle East. The above has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked. You simply evaded my question with something totally irrelevant.

I don't know why you find it irrelevant; there is no excuse for terrorism; nothing anybody says or does can justify that it is simply wrong. What I am trying to show you (unsuccessfully) is the abundance of terrorists in countries which have a sort of symbiotic relationship with certain Western governments. The fundamentalists need the "foreign power" to indoctrine impressionable young men about the "cause for poor economic and political conditions in their country" and they do so by using religion as a lever; similarly conservatives need such fundamentalists to "wage war" and they do so using "nationalism" as a lever. Its a political war that uses religion as a tool; but even if there were no religion there would still be country- people are as willing to die for their country as they are to die for their religion ( see the Palestinians)

Check out this link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4757861.stm

 

[lightgigantic]

Ok, point taken. If they were atheist by slow gradual process would we still see 'terrorism' suicide bombing etc on a similar scale?



.

I doubt it - there are stacks of terrorist organisations that have apparent religious affiliation - Like the IRA for instance (but they have recently toned down their operations to something more like a social body, which indicates their actual platform of activity)

I think the first suicide bombers were kamikazee japanese pilots - and japan was a buddhist country at the time -lol - the teachings of buddha (ahimsa = nonviolence) were hybridized with the way of the samurai to give something called bushido - How's that for strange bedfellows? -

The point is that if a society has social issues they will meet them through whatever exists in the way of authority - you see that with communist russia, the deployment tactics of the vietnamese cong, the tamil rebels of Sri Lanka etc etc - if religion is not the dominant authority structure then there will be appeals made to ideas of race, nationalism, gender etc to achieve the same goals (ie political resistance to an enemy)

In the case of the middle east it may appear that religion is stirring up problems but that is only because the local people identify with religion
If you take away religion from the middle east you will still be left with local people angry why there is foreign innvolvement in their homeland.

And if you want to see what the usa has done in the way of "foreign innvolvement" post ww2 just check out the tanbou link sam gave. Its ludicrous to think that terrorism is a muslim thing - its a predictable response from underhanded political manouvers

 

[perplexity]

I doubt it - there are stacks of terrorist organisations that don'y have a religious afffiliation - Like the IRA for instance ......

Huh?

You never yet heard of the Catholics and the Potestants?

--- Ron.

 

[lightgigantic]

Huh?

You never yet heard of the Catholics and the Potestants?

--- Ron.

apologies for my misuse of language

 

[S.A.M.]

Being very new here, you didn't read the past several years of arguments in which many atheists here began to read and understand the Quran, as well as other doctrines of Islam. An event occured almost 5 years ago which initiated that process for many of us, do you remember that event?



A moot comment.

I was not born yesterday; and I find it quite revealing that you studied the religion for the source of the terrorism. Do you think that following Pearl Harbor, all Americans studied Japanese Buddhism for the source of kamikaze pilots?

But, maybe some of your own kind could better explain it:

"What is our goal?

We are apostates of Islam. We denounce Islam as a false doctrine of hate and terror. However we are not against Muslims who are our own kin and relatives. We do not advocate hate and violence. Muslims are the main victims of Islam. Our goal is to educate them and let them see the truth. We are against Islam and not the Muslims. We strive to bring the Muslims into the fold of humanity. Eradicate Islam so our people can be liberated, so they can prosper and break away from the pillory of Islam. We would like to see Islamic countries dedicate more time to science and less time to Quran and Sharia. We would like to see them prosper and contribute to human civilization. We would like to see the draconian laws of Islam eliminated and people are treated humanely. We strive for freedom of beliefs, for equality of gender and for oneness of mankind."

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/



Hence, since you completely accept the atrocities of your religion, you are part of the problem and not the solution. You're opinions are based on the atrocities of your religion, as you nonchanlantly sweep those atrocities under the carpet hoping no one will notice.

Shameful, really.



Perhaps others could tell you:

"Who we are:

We are ex-Muslims. Some of us were born and raised in Islam and some of us had converted to Islam at some moment in our lives. We were taught never to question the truth of Islam and to believe in Allah and his messenger with blind faith. We were told that Allah would forgive all sins but the sin of disbelief (Quran 4:48 and 4:116). But we committed the ultimate sin of thinking and questioned the belief that was imposed on us and we came to realize that far from being a religion of truth, Islam is a hoax, it is hallucination of a sick mind and nothing but lies and deceits."

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/



I didn't, I focused on the other paragraphs and quoted them, but emphasized the conclusion.

This is what you consider evidence?

Maybe you run that site for all I know. :bugeye:

Most apostates who leave Islam ( e.g. in KSA, I lived there for 4 years, so I know this is true) leave their country with their families and move to neighbouring countries (Tunisia or Morocco) which are less conservative. Not exactly headline news, is it?

The previous article you linked suggested a 3-4:1 ratio, now you bring another article claiming 20 times the rate. Your research appears somewhat incompatible.

You're getting sloppy, my dear.

1st article: " Daly and Wilson found that a man is about 20 times more likely to be killed by another man than a woman is by another woman."

2nd article: "men kill at about 20 times the rate that women do"

Religion has failed. It's time for something new. How about education?

So has capitalism, socialism, communism and multicultaralism ; lets just wipe the whole slate clean and start over with prehistoric; no wait ! guess what! they were violent too!

http://www.online-archaeology.co.uk/Default.aspx?PageContentID=90&tabid=105
(don't miss the link for causes at the bottom)

They were your words, are you now claiming something else? Backpeddling?

No just marvelling at your intellectual talents.

Because it's utter BS, as was his previous quote.

It was based on your "conclusion"

Ah yes, the Argumentum ad Populum. Let's all jump on the Islamic bandwagon - everyones doing it!

No! no ! its the atheist bandwagon everyone is jumping on; remember?

The "everyone" who have decided that religion is a failure?

By the same educational standards now accepted the world over. I would doubt that mathematics in one country will be any different than another.

The same one taught right now, you mean?

"Mankind’s biggest challenge:

Today the humanity is facing a great danger. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise and the hatred is brewing in the minds of millions of Muslims. This hatred must be contained or there would be disastrous consequences. We believe that the education is the only answer."

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

Not really, indoctrination into a religion is very effective. It allows literally anyone to justify doing harm to others over the most trivial of matters, even nice people such as yourself.

Damned with faint praise indeed! I DO NOT approve the use of violence as a punishment by anyone; pointing out that it is political does not give it my approval.

But, there are those who break the cycle of indoctrination:

"Why Mohammed was not a prophet:

One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives and their “right hand possessions” (Quran 33:50)"

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

Yes, I can see where you get your inspiration; truly, I have no words.

To get an objective view, you might try something other than internet propaganda; if you ever get interested ( which I doubt, having seen your abhorrence to anything that counteracts your cherished opinions), let me know.

 

[KennyJC]

samcdkey & lightgigantic:

Religion is clearly not the only reason someone uses to blow themself up and take innocent civilians out with them. A lot of the time it's not the prime motive, if not THE motive, but it acts as a strong backup.

Nobody can deny that without religion, America would have no support to invade Iraq.

The IRA probably would not have formed if not for the division of Catholic and Protestant's mixed with strong religious beliefs.

So I am not picking on the Middle East here, however they do make my point pretty well... and I'm still waiting for an example of an atheist suicide bomber.

The Middle East's problems would not be solved overnight if half the population became atheist (like in Europe), but when you see the parts of the world that are causing so much trouble and the strong nature of religious belief that plays a big role in it... you can only put two and two together. Just take a look at the levels of religion in America and the Middle East, and understand how dangerous that is.

 

[S.A.M.]

samcdkey & lightgigantic:

Religion is clearly not the only reason someone uses to blow themself up and take innocent civilians out with them. A lot of the time it's not the prime motive, if not THE motive, but it acts as a strong backup.

So does racism and ethnicity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres

Nobody can deny that without religion, America would have no support to invade Iraq.

read the link I gave lightgigantic yesterday in this thread; the US needs no excuse for foreign involvement ( 200 engagements in 200 years). Scroll down to see a list of involvements where there was no religion involved.

The IRA probably would not have formed if not for the division of Catholic and Protestant's mixed with strong religious beliefs.

The IRA fought for their country; same as the Scots; its just that the Scots were more divided into clans, some of whom were loyal to the British, so nobody cared what religion they were. The Irish incidentally happened to be Catholic ( which the British used as an excuse). This was about fighting for freedom, same as any country would do (like mine did, India for 200 years)

So I am not picking on the Middle East here, however they do make my point pretty well... and I'm still waiting for an example of an atheist suicide bomber.

Atheists do not have a country yet; but tell me how do YOU feel if you hear about an atheist being stoned or killed? If there was a country of people like that and they were bombed by a theist country ( richer, more advanced ) how do you suppose they would defend themselves ( if they had no money, support from the world or technology)?

The Middle East's problems would not be solved overnight if half the population became atheist (like in Europe), but when you see the parts of the world that are causing so much trouble and the strong nature of religious belief that plays a big role in it... you can only put two and two together. Just take a look at the levels of religion in America and the Middle East, and understand how dangerous that is.

America is less than 9% of the world's population ( say all Christians, for a moment), the middle east less than 15% of all Muslims (the fundamentalist countries less than 2% of all Muslims). You do the math. Besides as Snakelord pointed out to me, all Americans are not in support of the war, just as all Muslims are not supporting AlQaida; heck the Iraqis were not even supporting Saddam and Osama had been kicked out of his own country.

The war is political and economic; its about power and greed. By playing the religion card, both sides are ensuring the war carries on, it provides more fuel for the fire. Too many educated Americans are getting sucked into the rhetoric fed to them by the media; its not so bad in Europe. Read the BBC news sometimes and compare it to American news sites; you'll see the different news angles.

 

[(Q)]

I was not born yesterday; and I find it quite revealing that you studied the religion for the source of the terrorism. Do you think that following Pearl Harbor, all Americans studied Japanese Buddhism for the source of kamikaze pilots?

This is what you consider evidence?

Maybe you run that site for all I know.

Oh I see, this is the first time you've ever heard of apostates and their blight. I guess the state of Islam IS all strawberries and cream.

To you, the thought of leaving Islam is ridiculous? Who could ever want to leave such a perfect religion?

Please note, that I don't run Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Islam:_Apostates_Speak_Out

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/065930.php

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Prince-fights-for-Muslim-apostates/2004/12/18/1103312783217.html

http://www.secularislam.org/testimonies/index.htm

Most apostates who leave Islam ( e.g. in KSA, I lived there for 4 years, so I know this is true) leave their country with their families and move to neighbouring countries (Tunisia or Morocco) which are less conservative. Not exactly headline news, is it?

If it made headline news, those people would probably now be dead.

So has capitalism, socialism, communism and multicultaralism ; lets just wipe the whole slate clean and start over with prehistoric; no wait ! guess what! they were violent too!

We're concerned about religion, if you wish to be refuted on those other topics, feel free to start a thread.

The same one taught right now, you mean?

Yes, education, are you familiar with it?

Damned with faint praise indeed! I DO NOT approve the use of violence as a punishment by anyone; pointing out that it is political does not give it my approval.

Calling it political is BS as it is entirely a religious issue, which you defend.

Yes, I can see where you get your inspiration; truly, I have no words.

To get an objective view, you might try something other than internet propaganda; if you ever get interested ( which I doubt, having seen your abhorrence to anything that counteracts your cherished opinions), let me know.

You see, you refuse to accept the atrocities of your religion. Clearly, you can no longer be seen as having any credibility if you consider the killing of apostates as mere propaganda.

Yes, I abhor it, who wouldn't abhor killing people simply because they no longer share your faith, other than an indoctrinated Muslim, of course.

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh I see, this is the first time you've ever heard of apostates and their blight. I guess the state of Islam IS all strawberries and cream.

To you, the thought of leaving Islam is ridiculous? Who could ever want to leave such a perfect religion?

Please note, that I don't run Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Islam:_Apostates_Speak_Out

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/065930.php

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Prince-fights-for-Muslim-apostates/2004/12/18/1103312783217.html

http://www.secularislam.org/testimonies/index.htm



If it made headline news, those people would probably now be dead.



We're concerned about religion, if you wish to be refuted on those other topics, feel free to start a thread.



Yes, education, are you familiar with it?



Calling it political is BS as it is entirely a religious issue, which you defend.



You see, you refuse to accept the atrocities of your religion. Clearly, you can no longer be seen as having any credibility if you consider the killing of apostates as mere propaganda.

Yes, I abhor it, who wouldn't abhor killing people simply because they no longer share your faith, other than an indoctrinated Muslim, of course.

Grr! I DO NOT support the killing of apostates by the countries that condone it; I was merely pointing out to you that it is a misrepresentation of Islam. It is politically condoned by the countries that practice it. It is WRONG!!!!

As far as I'm concerned, anyone is free to practice any religion ( or nonreligion ) they want.

I can't believe you do not get this!

 

[(Q)]

Grr! I DO NOT support the killing of apostates by the countries that condone it; I was merely pointing out to you that it is a misrepresentation of Islam. It is politically condoned by the countries that practice it. It is WRONG!!!!

Yes, it is wrong, it continues, and you defend it with every fiber of your being, to the point of defending it with propaganda. It is a religious issue, as the politics of Islam are governed by the religion, hence it is religious, no matter how much you refuse to accept it, along with all the other problems of Islam you've refused to accept and continue to defend.

And since you continue to defend it, you are obviously doing nothing about it, hence you're part of the problem, not the solution.

Only someone completely indoctrinated into a religion would continue to follow it regardless of the horrors the religion exhibits.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone is free to practice any religion ( or nonreligion ) they want.

I can't believe you do not get this!

Are they free to kill people for leaving the religion? Are they free to treat people like second-class citizens having no human rights?

I can't believe you do not get this!