Is Islam bad?

[kilauea]

I can't wait till the end of the earth. So that non-believers can do something practical like colonize another planet and start again without the idiots left behind waiting for their "rapture" or 72 virgins are whatever they expect. It will be biggest leap forward in intelligence related natural selection ever. We'll be manipulating matter with our minds within a couple of generations after that.

Bring it on you harbingers of the apocalypse! (....just as soon as we build the ships to get off the earth)

[Xyga]

We'll certainly self-annihilate ourselves along with our Earth much before we're able to travel in crowds to other livable planets.
I'm telling you; we're stuck with them, stuck with everybody, here, forever.
Over 7billion, with already 3billion sharing shit on the internet: Earth has become a pharaonic behind-closed-doors reality show.
Maybe some advanced alien race is watching, eating popcorn ?

[President_Obama]

Eating babies' faces.

[Moniker]

This probably doesn't belong here; didn't feel like making a separate thread, but what's the deal with Israeli settlements in the West Bank & Gaza? Meaning: why do they even put them there? I know about anti-settlement reasons, but I've never seen a pro-Israeli justification. Lebensraum surely can't be the answer.

[Xyga]

Justification ?
The land. You know they want it all. We all know. There's a meaning to the word 'colony', right ?
They'll keep doing this till Palestine completely disappears and all of its non-jewish population submits/leaves/dies.

[Astraea FGA Mk. I]

Islam oppresses women at every level of dedication. This alone makes it bad in my opinion.

[Lord Satori]

But is it truly Islam that does that, or is it just that Middle-eastern culture has become associated with Islam?

[austere]

But is it truly Islam that does that, or is it just that Middle-eastern culture has become associated with Islam?

OBJECTION!



Exhibit A: Two American women join ISIS.

[Moniker]

Yeah plenty of American Muslim women - apparently chiefly black ones, never seen a honky, or even anyone dark complected for that matter - wear the full burka. I guess you could say similar of nuns wearing habits, but they're essentially, if not nominally, clergy. Of course, the fact that only men can be proper clergy, at least for Catholics, is undeniably sexist.

[Krooze L-Roy]

I've come to the conclusion that even a lousy religion is better than no religion. People will always have a "most important thing" around which they frame their life and beliefs. As long as they're concerned with their immortal souls, they tend not to cause too much commotion in the grand scheme of things. With religion out of the way, the "second most important thing" simply plops it's ass on the throne and inherits all the passion and zeal that religion previously commanded. Same job, new boss, and usually a worse one - most dangerously, a political ideology.

I mean, between Nazism, Communism, and Fascism, in a single century, political ideology caused more death and destruction than all three Abrahamic religions did over the course of millennia. And without any of the redeeming qualities.

Even if you don't believe a lick of it, you've got to admit that there are worse things for people to base their lives around than being a good person to appease a God. And there is certainly a stabilizing effect to having a set of unchanging morality rulebooks governing, rather than whatever new trendy idea flies out of an intellectual's ass. People need a degree of stability to build and grow.

[Pretas]

I mean, between Nazism, Communism, and Fascism, in a single century, political ideology caused more death and destruction than all three Abrahamic religions did over the course of millennia. And without any of the redeeming qualities.

That was largely a result of the application of new technological developments towards warfare and mass murder, not a supposed decline in religious belief.

If the Crusaders of the 12th century had access to chemical weapons, tanks, automatic firearms and bombs, you can bet they also would have used them to their fullest extent.

And there is certainly a stabilizing effect to having a set of unchanging morality rulebooks governing, rather than whatever new trendy idea flies out of an intellectual's ass.

That might be okay, if the rulebooks in question (the three Abrahamic religions) weren't continuing to perpetuate the morals of ancient desert tribal cultures. Most of which have little or no relevance to modern civilization and society, and are often directly at odds with progressive values.

[ED-057]

As long as they're concerned with their immortal souls, they tend not to cause too much commotion

You mean like suicide bombings, abortion clinic bombings, honor killings?

I mean, between Nazism, Communism, and Fascism, in a single century, political ideology caused more death and destruction than all three Abrahamic religions did over the course of millennia. And without any of the redeeming qualities.

It wasn't the ideology that made it possible. Larger populations and modern weaponry did.

a stabilizing effect to having a set of unchanging morality

Where? Religions divide themselves into various rival sects because their beliefs aren't stable or unchanging. Just look at this thread or any other internet thread about religion. Criticism of religion gets brushed off with "no TRUE Scotsman" type replies. If it's not possible to pin down what a religion is supposed to be about, because even the people who identify as belonging to that religion can't agree amongst themselves, then it is also not possible to judge its value.

[Krooze L-Roy]

That was largely a result of the application of new technological developments towards warfare and mass murder, not a supposed decline in religious belief.

If the Crusaders of the 12th century had access to chemical weapons, tanks, automatic firearms and bombs, you can bet they also would have used them to their fullest extent.

It wasn't the ideology that made it possible. Larger populations and modern weaponry did.

Nothing new about starvation and slave labor, which is how most of the victims of these groups met their ends. I wasn't even including combatant war casualties when I said that Ideology has been more destructive than Religion, but including them would do nothing to hurt the argument.

That might be okay, if the rulebooks in question (the three Abrahamic religions) weren't continuing to perpetuate the morals of ancient desert tribal cultures. Most of which have little or no relevance to modern civilization and society, and are often directly at odds with progressive values.

And what makes you so sure your "progressive values" are any better than the Ideologies of the previous century? They sound well and good, but surely so did the others at the time. Until things had been played out to their conclusion it will be impossible to judge.

Egalitariamism is the leading political Ideology in the Western world today, and it's power has been amassing for some time now. Like it's predecessors, it shares many characteristics with religious belief, but seems to be shitting out fundies at twice the rate. Very imperialist, very militant, very shrill, and always shifting focus and increasing in scope. Certainly no less dangerous a movement than the others were, though let's hope for all of our sakes that it plays out better.

You mean like suicide bombings, abortion clinic bombings, honor killings?

Fundamentalists are the problem, be they religious or ideology oriented. The real danger is when these people seize the reigns of power. When it's religious fundies, they can be oppressive as hell, but when it's political fundies, that's when heads really start to roll.

Where? Religions divide themselves into various rival sects because their beliefs aren't stable or unchanging. Just look at this thread or any other internet thread about religion. Criticism of religion gets brushed off with "no TRUE Scotsman" type replies. If it's not possible to pin down what a religion is supposed to be about, because even the people who identify as belonging to that religion can't agree amongst themselves, then it is also not possible to judge its value.

Relatively speaking, intersect violence is small scale. You look at the numbers in such conflicts and they're certainly horrific, but not earthshakingly, apocalyptically so. No less devastating for the individuals who get caught in the middle, but at least there are fewer of them. I think the actual religious beliefs are at least somewhat of a safeguard against massive scale atrocity.

[CStarFlare]

It wasn't the ideology that made it possible. Larger populations and modern weaponry did.

Nothing new about starvation and slave labor, which is how most of the victims of these groups met their ends. I wasn't even including combatant war casualties when I said that Ideology has been more destructive than Religion, but including them would do nothing to hurt the argument.

You glossed over his point about the size (and density) of the population being targeted the modern conflicts you mentioned. And modern weaponry (/technology) did not just make killing on the battlefield more efficient - identifying and tracking the targeted population is made easier by modern recordkeeping and communications, collecting and transporting them is made easier with infrastructure and vehicles/trains, and controlling a few dozen thousand people with literally nothing to lose can be done with out an army if you have fully automatic weapons.

[Krooze L-Roy]

It wasn't the ideology that made it possible. Larger populations and modern weaponry did.

Nothing new about starvation and slave labor, which is how most of the victims of these groups met their ends. I wasn't even including combatant war casualties when I said that Ideology has been more destructive than Religion, but including them would do nothing to hurt the argument.

You glossed over his point about the size (and density) of the population being targeted the modern conflicts you mentioned. And modern weaponry (/technology) did not just make killing on the battlefield more efficient - identifying and tracking the targeted population is made easier by modern recordkeeping and communications, collecting and transporting them is made easier with infrastructure and vehicles/trains, and controlling a few dozen thousand people with literally nothing to lose can be done with out an army if you have fully automatic weapons.

So you're saying, what? That we should apply inflation to all historical bloodshed to make up for their lack of advanced weaponry?

If you feel that I'm comparing apples to oranges, let's go back a couple centuries to the 18th Century. The Catholic Church is still massively powerful in Europe, the Inquisition is going strong, and has been in continuous operation for more than half a millennia. And yet, within a mere couple of years, the atheistic, ideology-driven Reign of Terror in France managed to rack up more than ten times the kill count.

Same technology, same resources, same population densities, same basic goal (tracking down heretics vs tracking down bourgeois), completely different mentality.

[Doctor Butler]

Even if you don't believe a lick of it, you've got to admit that there are worse things for people to base their lives around than being a good person to appease a God. And there is certainly a stabilizing effect to having a set of unchanging morality rulebooks governing, rather than whatever new trendy idea flies out of an intellectual's ass. People need a degree of stability to build and grow.

I very much doubt the victims of numerous (sometimes fatal) attacks on clinics, innumerous anti-gay hate crimes, 9/11, or the Ugandan genocide would agree with that. What you described is secularized, reform religion, which is more common in modernized, first-world nations, and is indeed harmless.

But, I've noticed that the more impoverished an area is, the greater their religious extremism generally becomes. Religion offers an escape, a flight of fancy to lessen the harshness of reality; people in desperation often turn to religion, as a coping mechanism.

Compare and contrast Northern US states to Southern US states; Northern States are generally more secular, denser population, more jobs, better education, and a better economy, whereas southern states typically have less schools, less people, less business or job oppurtunities, and are generally at a financial disadvantage. Religious belief is more common, as is violence acted out on the behalf of religious doctrine. And this is just in the US.

Imagine if this same principle were applied to a third-world nation, situated in an unforgiving desert, such as those in the middle-east? Suddenly we aren't looking at a bi-weekly back alley mugging, we're looking at international violence.

Because of God.

[Xyga]

"No god, no master, try to live your own life peacefully and don't ruin your neighbour's"

From a member of 'the not giving a fuck party/church' who never attends to any meetings (no member ever does anyway).

[mastermx]

Does it really matter whether religion is bad or good. People are going to do what they have been taught whatever you say to them. Rich countries will have less problems, and countries stricken with poverty will have more problems. Discussions of religion are as futile as discussions about politics, unless something really stands to change the status quo nothing much will change.

I'd rather just believe that most humans are good by nature and not get too embroiled in these debates. Modernisation and the Internet has already changed people's perspectives for the better. Everyone is more connected and hate tactics are less effective.

And besides our time on this earth is small, might as well dedicate it to a worthy cause. Time spent playing shmups>time spent debating religion.

[Xyga]

... and the Internet has already changed people's perspectives for the better. Everyone is more connected and hate tactics are less effective.

IMHO this is exactly the opposite (at least currently it is). All the bad things communicated through the internet have a powerful crushing effect on the masse's minds and our everyday lives, more powerful than the good things. I believe it's changing humanity in an unprecedented way that we will later see as an historical, humanity-scale turn-point.

And besides our time on this earth is small, might as well dedicate it to a worthy cause. Time spent playing shmups>time spent debating religion.

That's part of the good side.

[Lord Satori]

This is exactly why I stay away from facebook. I've seen enough depressingly stupid and hateful shit elsewhere. I'd rather stay ignorant in my own bubble world.

[CStarFlare]

If you feel that I'm comparing apples to oranges, let's go back a couple centuries to the 18th Century. The Catholic Church is still massively powerful in Europe, the Inquisition is going strong, and has been in continuous operation for more than half a millennia. And yet, within a mere couple of years, the atheistic, ideology-driven Reign of Terror in France managed to rack up more than ten times the kill count.

Same technology, same resources, same population densities, same basic goal (tracking down heretics vs tracking down bourgeois), completely different mentality.

Of course the mentality is different - one was a short burst of revolutionary violence with the goal of laying the foundations for a new form of governance and the other was a judicial system focused on maintaining power for an institution that wasn't facing physical threat. Even if you can boil them down to being campaigns against a specific group these events were very different and it's not really proper to compare them the way you're trying to.

But going back to your main post:

I've come to the conclusion that even a lousy religion is better than no religion. People will always have a "most important thing" around which they frame their life and beliefs. As long as they're concerned with their immortal souls, they tend not to cause too much commotion in the grand scheme of things. With religion out of the way, the "second most important thing" simply plops it's ass on the throne and inherits all the passion and zeal that religion previously commanded. Same job, new boss, and usually a worse one - most dangerously, a political ideology.

I don't think that a person's dedication to religion and political ideology have a relationship like that: they don't draw from the same limited resource (unless you're expending all your time/energy towards one or the other). Fervent dedication doesn't just transfer like that, either; if you were extremely religious and now you're not, you're likely just going to mellow out instead of becoming a super intense something-else. Certainly extreme ideologies can be dangerous, but religion isn't the dam that's holding them back - people's decency and their desire for a (good) stable life do more to keep civilization standing then religion does. Social decay and violent revolution are due to human fallibility, not because people weren't sufficiently distracted from reality.

I'm not saying that religion doesn't have a place in the world, but I think you're overestimating how critical it is to our society.

[Skykid]

It's all about buddhism folks. Surely the most laid-back, noncommittal approach to faith I've ever lived in firsthand.

[President_Obama]

I'd sooner find an end to irrationality in our species.

[Skykid]

I'd sooner find an end to irrationality in our species.

Sort of goes hand in hand with stupidity. There is no cure.

[President_Obama]

Asperger's.

[Krooze L-Roy]

I don't think that a person's dedication to religion and political ideology have a relationship like that: they don't draw from the same limited resource (unless you're expending all your time/energy towards one or the other). Fervent dedication doesn't just transfer like that, either; if you were extremely religious and now you're not, you're likely just going to mellow out instead of becoming a super intense something-else. Certainly extreme ideologies can be dangerous, but religion isn't the dam that's holding them back - people's decency and their desire for a (good) stable life do more to keep civilization standing then religion does. Social decay and violent revolution are due to human fallibility, not because people weren't sufficiently distracted from reality.

I'm not saying that religion doesn't have a place in the world, but I think you're overestimating how critical it is to our society.

I think of it as more of like a personality type; the Zealot. Certainly there are some for whom a particular belief or cause will particularly resonate, but in general I think a zealot is a zealot. If you made clones of one of these people and sent them to different historical periods, they'd all be swept into whatever movements or ideas were fashionable during that particular time and place, and they'd be there at the forefront with the megaphone or megapitchfork.

Because that's the thing about a zealot; they have to be more extreme than thou. They always want to take things too far. They're the type of people who you can tell your most outrageous personal anecdote to, and they'll follow you up "that's nothing..." and launch into a bold-faced lie that outdoes your story by being twice as ridiculous. They have this deadly combination of moral dualism, one track thinking, and a tendency for competing with others by amplification. Amongst comfortable and happy people, these ideas won't hold much water and the zealot is relegated to lone wolf status, but amongst the discontented (be they genuinely oppressed, or just bored and young and angry), it places them in natural leadership positions.

Religion at least has boundaries that should (but, sadly, don't always) protect against this natural penchant for intensification; envelopes can only be pushed so far. But in the realm of pure ideas, there are no such constraints.

[austere]

Religion at least has boundaries that should (but, sadly, don't always) protect against this natural penchant for intensification; envelopes can only be pushed so far. But in the realm of pure ideas, there are no such constraints.

Well, this was once true, but not anymore. The clergy of each religion had a lot of control that they used to constraint the behaviour of the masses, they either ran recital schools or kept limited copies of scriptures. They put the meanings behind the words of each religious text. The arrival of the printing press coincided with the European renaissance. Being able to print religious text en masse allows anyone to study it in their own time and make up their own minds as well as attach the most meaningful ideas to its words (Unfortunately for the Ottoman empire, the printing press wasn't adaptable to cursive text at the time so the invention was dismissed as "unartistic" to excuse the limitation of the script. If they had the insight to see the power of such a machine, history would be quite different).

Today, even in religion there are no real constraints. Just look how splintered every religion is with various sects and conflicting ideas, that eventually form into a conflict.

It's true that religion serves a very important purpose to control a group of people when they are outside supervision. Without religion, we could not have civilization as it stands today. Today there are new religions, even if regarded as ideologies, e.g. Progressivism or "goodism" as I like to call it sarcastically, since the name inherently employs circular-logic. Just like the old religions, these also serve a purpose and promote visions of insightful (and I don't necessarily mean this in a positive way) individuals. Most people unknowingly follow a religion but very few overcome themselves and constrain their own behaviour with boundaries they define individually by looking inwards and then outwards. I put it to you then that, as long as one is sufficiently capable, it's better to avoid religion all together, make up your own rules and actually stick to them.

[Jonathan Ingram]

If you feel that I'm comparing apples to oranges, let's go back a couple centuries to the 18th Century. The Catholic Church is still massively powerful in Europe, the Inquisition is going strong, and has been in continuous operation for more than half a millennia. And yet, within a mere couple of years, the atheistic, ideology-driven Reign of Terror in France managed to rack up more than ten times the kill count.

Same technology, same resources, same population densities, same basic goal (tracking down heretics vs tracking down bourgeois), completely different mentality.

Why are you comparing the policies of religious organizations which exist as a superstructure on top of the base of economic relations of society with a historical event that changed the said economic base effectively refashioning it in the interests of the French bourgeoisie that emerged as the dominant social class after the revolution?

And where exactly do you draw a distinction between ideology(which you even typed with a capital "I" on one occasion in this thread) and religion? An ideology represents the entire spectrum of ideas conceived and imagined by man, ergo it encompasses religion too.

[Despatche]

zzz religion. back to the circumcision thing, which is also the bodily hair thing.

people are weird and don't really understand what "consistency" means, to the point where they don't realize they're ever being consistent about this or that thing. that is, they're right for the wrong reasons, which means they're dangerous because being right and being wrong are the same thing to them.

medical benefits, hygiene, all blah. what matters is that both a circumcised penis and a cleanly-shaved body will look more consistent when compared to everything else about the outer body and its development. while the foreskin does help with <x important-fun thing>, bodily hair sure as hell doesn't and that at least needs to go. i like consistency, so for no other reason i am for the removal of both. similarly, people who obsess over both like they do are pretty weird.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

medical benefits, hygiene, all blah. what matters is that both a circumcised penis and a cleanly-shaved body will look more consistent when compared to everything else about the outer body and its development

???

RegalSin?

If we're going to bring Penn Jillette to this discussion, I must mention this.

Great episode, it was removed from YT but you can watch it here.

I must say, as an uncircumcised guy who has had sex with a number of circumcised guys, I get plenty of comments about how they wish they'd still had their foreskin, even if just for masturbation. I know mine is a lot of fun.