Q: Why does Islam call Jews & Christians non-believers [Infidels]?

[quadraphonics]

I said 'everyone' is a bigot if they hold to any sense of right or wrong as any society does

Hogwash. Bigotry is not the same thing as morals. Bigotry is the obstinate or intolerant adherence to prejudice, and in particular the hostility towards those who do not share said prejudices.

A person with a reasoned, tolerant adherence to their moral convictions is not a bigot.

'Unbeliever' is a subjective term...

Not on its own it isn't. You have to add a normative religious bigotry to the mix in order to get the "subjectivity." It's no problem to apply the term to, say, atheists. But to apply it to someone who is religious is exactly the same sort of "subjectivity" in which other races are "savages" and other political views are "treason." I.e., bigoted supremacism.

so the point of view (hence context) matters. I'm just as much an unbeliever to Christians as they are to me.

To bigoted Christian supremacists, you mean. And, yeah, they're just as much of dicks for their bigoted language as you are.

If you're not willing to understand the contextual perspective of the word-

It's exactly such an understanding that drives the objections. How many times are you going to beat this dead horse of an argumentative tactic, exactly?

I'm a kaffir if a Christian said it, and I have no problems with being labeled a unbeliever by a Christian. Because I happily profess that I do not hold the same beliefs as a Christian.

You should have a problem with it, because said Christian is not saying simply that you don't believe the same thing as him, but also that your beliefs are invalid. Mainstream Christians do not go around calling members of other religions "unbelievers." Only bigoted fundamentalists do that, and it is offensive and dangerous.

keep pointing the finger of bigotry without accepting your own bigotry (which I did)

What bigotry is there for me to accept, exactly? You haven't identified any.

And "accepting ones own bigotry" is precisely what is objectionable. The only excuse for bigotry is ignorance - good people are supposed to work at overcoming their bigotries when they encounter them. To "accept ones own bigotry" might as well be the definition of fundamentalism.

This is a pointless discussion.

Only because you persist in repeating yourself and pursuing evasive rhetorical tactics instead of aknowledging the points being made and responding to them substantively. So either man up and engage, or just stop. Repeated complaints about pointlessness are asinine.

Peace be unto you

ALL SANDNIGGERS MUST DIE

 

[Michael]

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
US physicist (1933 - )



Surely anyone could recognize the inherent bigotry in labeling someone an Infidel? Even more so in a highly religious society. :shrug:

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: There are no 'infidels', because there is no god.

 

[786]

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
US physicist (1933 - )

Atheist talking about "Good" and "evil"? Don't make me laugh.

Peace be unto you

 

[GeoffP]

Uh, atheists may judge good and evil as well as you, 786: or, as I suspect, much better.

 

[786]

Uh, atheists may judge good and evil as well as you, 786: or, as I suspect, much better.

Yes relatively that is true. But to tell someone else that they are doing something 'evil' or 'good' coming from those who believe in relative 'good' and 'evil' is like refusing to understand what 'relative' means, where they could be doing relatively 'good' according to their own relativity as compared to what the atheists are calling 'evil' by their own relativity. Oh the relativity :roflmao:

Oh not to mention: good and evil are both bigoted concepts

Peace be unto you

 

[GeoffP]

Well, if you could define a stance of relative good and evil that atheists might adhere to, less conservative than a meaningful moralist stance, then I could agree with you. As it is...

 

[786]

Well, if you could define a stance of relative good and evil that atheists might adhere to, less conservative than a meaningful moralist stance, then I could agree with you. As it is...

That is relatively irrelevant, because whatever it is is still relative. Also 'good' and 'evil' are relatively bigoted polarizations.

Peace be unto you

 

[SnakeLord]

That is relatively irrelevant, because whatever it is is still relative

Unsupported claim. I would advise reading up on the evolution of morality.

Even if we were to take morality as relative, (i.e in Saudi Arabia it is moral to stone criminals to death whereas in the western world it would be immoral to do the same), it does not in any whatsoever negate the ability of any individual to say that something is or isn't wrong.

In this scenario - where you have someone saying it's moral and someone saying it's immoral, you would sit down and come to an agreeable conclusion based upon rationality, reasoning and intelligent discussion. What you wouldn't do is take the smug attitude of "hahaha, my morals are better than your morals". As a species we have the ability to communicate, to reason, to consider what is or is not beneficial or detrimental to that species and others.

Muslims, (and other fundamentalist theists), don't want to discuss, don't want to reason or communicate. What they want, what they demand is a theocracy - rules and morals based not upon reason or intelligent discussion but upon ancient mandate. Upon the words of shepherds and people living in mud huts 1,000 or 2,000 years ago.

So, let's come to an agreement. Let's discuss and reason. Let's look at the evolutionary reasons for morality and how far we can go in agreement with what we should take as moral or not. We all, (other than psychopaths), have a functional medial pre-frontal cortex and so can certainly address moral issues.

Whenever you're ready, make a list that we can work through. For example:

1. Murder
2. Rape
3. Homosexuality
4. Stoning a woman to death because she showed her face in public etc...

We can work through this list together - as a species as opposed to of a particular religious brain state.

 

[GeoffP]

That is relatively irrelevant, because whatever it is is still relative. Also 'good' and 'evil' are relatively bigoted polarizations.

Peace be unto you

You don't understand: all morality is relative.

Now all you have to do is define where your breakpoint lies and why.

Evil being more bigoted than good, I'm not worried about your presumptions.

 

[786]

Even if we were to take morality as relative, (i.e in Saudi Arabia it is moral to stone criminals to death whereas in the western world it would be immoral to do the same), it does not in any whatsoever negate the ability of any individual to say that something is or isn't wrong.

But an individual saying so doesn't it something. You may believe its wrong to stone people- but there are those who believe its wrong to do what they did to get stoned in the first place

Some have a problem accepting the death penalty as 'moral', others have no problem with it. Some have a problem accepting eye for an eye ideology others don't because it seems more 'fair' (not just based on religion).

In this scenario - where you have someone saying it's moral and someone saying it's immoral, you would sit down and come to an agreeable conclusion based upon rationality, reasoning and intelligent discussion. What you wouldn't do is take the smug attitude of "hahaha, my morals are better than your morals". As a species we have the ability to communicate, to reason, to consider what is or is not beneficial or detrimental to that species and others.

Until that 'discussion' is over, you would be asserting your morality is better by enforcement by law if you were in power.

Whenever you're ready, make a list that we can work through. For example:

1. Murder
2. Rape
3. Homosexuality
4. Stoning a woman to death because she showed her face in public etc...

All immoral- do we agree? Not much of a discussion left now is there.

We can work through this list together - as a species as opposed to of a particular religious brain state.

Okay. But I'm not contending that a set of morals is better than another.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

You don't understand: all morality is relative.

Now all you have to do is define where your breakpoint lies and why.

Evil being more bigoted than good, I'm not worried about your presumptions.

So why not leave the bigotry aside and not talk about 'good' or 'evil' or 'moral' or 'immoral'... These words shouldn't be used, right?

Peace be unto you

 

[GeoffP]

I have a reasonable perspective on morality, which I accept is relative in the space of the complete range of human belief. Still, mine is the most correct.

I'm already aware of your beliefs, of course.

 

[quadraphonics]

All immoral- do we agree?

We do not. There is nothing "immoral" about homosexuality.

Okay. But I'm not contending that a set of morals is better than another.

Refusing to own up to your contentions is not the same thing as not making them in the first place.

Peace be unto you

ALL SANDNIGGERS MUST DIE!!!

 

[786]

We do not. There is nothing "immoral" about homosexuality.

So we don't agree. Now can you please present your bigoted argument, while I present mine? Not to mention we're way off topic

Refusing to own up to your contentions is not the same thing as not making them in the first place.

Actually I was discussing from the atheistic viewpoint- if you didn't catch it, that I was talking about morality from a 'relative' perspective- which isn't how the theist view it. So the 'contention' wasn't mine to own up to

Peace be unto you

 

[quadraphonics]

So we don't agree. Now can you please present your bigoted argument, while I present mine?

I don't have a bigoted argument for that. I have a reasoned one. And I'd bet that you can guess more or less what it looks like, since it's pretty common and standard. Why don't you give it a shot.

Or, anyway, stop trying to water down "bigotry" to mean "anything anyone believes." The fact that other people have beliefs doesn't make them bigots, and wouldn't excuse your willful bigotry even if it did.

Not to mention we're way off topic

Not really. And not through any fault of mine, regardless.

Actually I was discussing from the atheistic viewpoint- if you didn't catch it, that I was talking about morality from a 'relative' perspective- which isn't how the theist view it.

Also not how many atheists view it. Plenty of atheists are anything but moral relativists. But I guess you'll own up to putting words into the mouths of "atheists," no?

Peace be unto you

ALL SANDNIGGERS MUST DIE!!!

 

[786]

Or, anyway, stop trying to water down "bigotry" to mean "anything anyone believes." The fact that other people have beliefs doesn't make them bigots, and wouldn't excuse your willful bigotry even if it did.

Having beliefs doesn't, sure.. but no one just holds beliefs.... they try to enforce them- that is where the bigotry then comes in.... Surely Homosexuality is not a political issue- its simply a belief?

Also not how many atheists view it. Plenty of atheists are anything but moral relativists. But I guess you'll own up to putting words into the mouths of "atheists," no?

All of them don't have to... it doesn't change the fact that it is a 'atheistic view'. And it is something that is commonly what the atheist argue.. If you're one of the absolute morality guys, then I'd like to hear your argument.

Peace be unto you

 

[quadraphonics]

Having beliefs doesn't, sure.. but no one just holds beliefs.... they try to enforce them-

Except when they don't.

that is where the bigotry then comes in....

No bigotry is required in working out rational positions and reasoned mechanisms for appropriate enforcement. It is not bigotry to conclude that murder is immoral and erect a law enforcement edifice to act accordingly.

Surely Homosexuality is not a political issue- its simply a belief?

? WTF does that even mean?

In the first place, homosexuality is obviously politicized in almost every society on Earth. In the second place, it's not a "belief" but a sexual orientation. And in the third place, I do not find it to be volitional in the way that beliefs or actions are.

All of them don't have to... it doesn't change the fact that it is a 'atheistic view'. And it is something that is commonly what the atheist argue..

Weasel words.

If you're one of the absolute morality guys, then I'd like to hear your argument.

I'm going to content myself with arguing that your stilted mischaracterization of atheist thought is unacceptable and a prime example of the sort of offensively bigoted approach to Others that you exhibit.

Peace be unto you

ALL SANDNIGGERS MUST DIE!!!

 

[786]

No bigotry is required in working out rational positions and reasoned mechanisms for appropriate enforcement. It is not bigotry to conclude that murder is immoral and erect a law enforcement edifice to act accordingly.

Well choosing murder as an example which almost everyone agrees upon is great.

? WTF does that even mean?

In the first place, homosexuality is obviously politicized in almost every society on Earth. In the second place, it's not a "belief" but a sexual orientation.

Hmm... We were talking about morality... so in this context it would be 'belief in the moral value of homosexuality'... I wasn't talking about 'belief' in regards to the actual existence of it.

I'm going to content myself with arguing that your stilted mischaracterization of atheist thought is unacceptable and a prime example of the sort of offensively bigoted approach to Others that you exhibit.

Okay, sure. But the majority of atheists I've talked to hold relativistic views. Actually I've never met one with absolutist views. You want to give me an example of one? Are you? What is your argument- nvm you don't want to present it :shrug:

Peace be unto you

 

[GeoffP]

it doesn't change the fact that it is a 'atheistic view'.

So your basis for the wish to persecute homosexuals is your religious belief. Not exactly surprising. Since we've at least nailed that canard down, can you tell me the moral basis of that religious position? It, too, you see, is relative - unless you can explain in what sense it's absolute?