Is Islam bad?

[austere]

Nah, Despatche has a thing for consistency. But this takes it to extreme OCD territory. o_O

[Skykid]

Well he's been consistently talking out of his ass recently, but the post on the last page is either expert trolling or an attempt to break his own record.

[Lord Satori]

Heh. It's actually kinda funny when it's someone else.

I think I can sorta understand what he's trying to say, but I'm not positive enough to attempt a response.

zzz religion. back to the circumcision thing

This IS a religion thread you know, with circumcision as a sub-topic sort of. (which only came up because judaism) Not the other way around.

[Doctor Butler]

"consistency".

I think he's referring to the argument above, of ideology v. religion.

"Religious nuts have no moral qualms with their wrongdoings, because they perceive it as "God's work", and therefore righteous.
Since they are unaware of their own immorality, they will never stop, which makes religion more dangerous than ideology."

Of course, I might just be projecrting my own personal feelings on what's mindless rambling, lol.

[evil_ash_xero]

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

Except in Burma.

That's some crazy shite.

[Moniker]

Militant Buddhism is perhaps more scary than the prospect of a zombie apocalypse. Or more awesome, depending on the choreographer.

[austere]

I hate to admit it but I love this song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE2uZoSsjXU

They don't hate us, they just hate their lives
And desperate people, learn to despise
The suicidals, don't want a coup
They don't wanna blow up
They just want their 72

72 virgins can never stop a war
But 100, 000 hookers can beat the Marine Core
And stopping violence, fighting will cease
When everyone is getting blowjobs
That's when we'll finally have world peace.

[Moniker]

When everyone is getting blowjobs
That's when we'll finally have world peace.

Hard to argue with that. ISIS at least would probably chill out a bit if their blowjobs per capita increased. Or at least if it rivaled their headjobs per capita.

Speaking of which, folks have been strangely quiet about the establishment of a fundamentalist militant rogue state these days. Even with the airline headlines, and all.

[Acid King]

She's a feminist, so she may object to me saying this, but this lady must have giant cast iron balls... Ultra-mega-not-safe-for-work link below.

Egyptian Activist Menstruates and Shits on ISIS flag

[djvinc]

All I can think of : it's serious shit.

[Acid King]

All I can say is that if Islamic hardliners were so offended by a shitty youtube movie that they protested and attacked an embassy, they'd better be sending a whole army of suicide ninjas after that lady.

EDIT: She's been posting the death threats she's received on her twitter feed.

[Weak Boson]

Of all the blood split over those words this seems like a relatively harmless contribution. You have to be a really hard hardliner to think this is worse than what ISIS are doing with them. That said I'd be pretty offended if I was a flag.

[BulletMagnet]

She's brave, to be sure, but one can only hope that the hardliners and their sympathizers don't succeed in using this to persuade more moderate Muslims that she, and others like her who speak out against the radical elements, must hate every manifestation of the faith, not just the repressive/violent ones.

[moh]

didn't read thread, I know better than to read about religion on an internet forum.

moh (short for mohamad), I am a muslim. A muslim dolphin with a giant dick.

[Lord Satori]

I am a muslim. A muslim dolphin with a giant dick.

I think I've got my new sig.

[Mortificator]

The hajj must be so difficult for dolphins.

[Michaelm]

Not all religions are bad but monotheism surely is.

When I hear ppl say that some group is just using religion as an excuse to be violent I think they are completely wrong.
For me it is the religion which provides them the excuse.
As in without the religion they would have no excuse at all.
They would just be some violent bunch killing ppl off.

The fact that in monotheism they worship one almighty deity is exactly what makes it so dangerous.
It seems to be such a natural thing for monotheists to explain everything as the will of their beloved deity so that the step to explain the use of violence as the will of their beloved deity is not out of the ordinary at all but just a natural prolongation of it.
Therefore monotheism will remain extremely dangerous even when there is only one form of monotheism left.

Just my 2 cents.

[BulletMagnet]

As in without the religion they would have no excuse at all.

There will always be an excuse, religion just happens to be a particularly convenient one - if religion/monotheism/whatever vanished tomorrow some wars would no longer happen but others would keep flaring up as if nothing had changed. People don't always need divine approval to be at each other's throats, and never have.

[BIL]

Yes, yes Islam is bad. And so is John Cena. Now I can't stop drawing CMDR Stryker (NOT RELIGION SAFE) fanart!

[Michaelm]

religion just happens to be a particularly convenient one

This is exactly what I'm trying to debunk.
It is not that they have become violent out of nowhere and found monotheism as a convenient excuse.
It is the monotheism that made them to become violent in the first place cause the excuse is built in.

People don't always need divine approval to be at each other's throats, and never have.

While this is true reality shows us that monotheism keeps fueling lots of violent groups and this will remain so as long as monotheism exists.
It is also the monotheism that provides them with credit from fellow believers as the built in excuse of monotheism is at t he core of it.
Fellow believers might reject the violence but they will have a real hard time rejecting the excuse as it would mean rejecting their belief.
The concept they all have of an eternal afterlife is in my view one of the biggest problems with them.
It's like we see a reversal of the Renaissance in today's monotheists where the eternal afterlife is considered more important than the life they're living now.
In other words there would be a lot less violence without monotheism.

[Acid King]

I don't know why you're singling out monotheism. I'm pretty sure there were quite a few bloodthirsty polytheistic religions back in the day.

[Michaelm]

I don't know why you're singling out monotheism. I'm pretty sure there were quite a few bloodthirsty polytheistic religions back in the day.

I'm pretty sure you not so sure.
The wars back in the day weren't ignited by polytheism but by expansion drift. Comparable to the wars ignited by the west nowadays.
That the monotheists, who committed genocide on the polytheists, pantheists and other non monotheistic religions, afterwards say it was so doesn't have to mean it's true.
After all, we all know the victors write the history.

Anyway polytheism is by far less dangerous than monotheism for the simple fact that they worship more gods compared to the one almighty being in monotheism.
Also christianity stole festivity days from other religions and only relabeled them just to make it easier for them to 'convert' non monotheists.
It can hardly be called a true religion after those facts. It's more of a power hungry entity willing to adjust to gain more power.
Yet they became the main religion in the west.

For me the fact that monotheism spread so wide is because of it's use of violence and dirty tricks scaring the non-monotheistic population in such a way that they became monotheists out of fear. Most of them didn't convert cause monotheism is such a nice religion but because monotheism uses all means possible to get the desired effect.
After all, their one almighty deity is always behind them.

[BulletMagnet]

Anyway polytheism is by far less dangerous than monotheism for the simple fact that they worship more gods compared to the one almighty being in monotheism.

You keep saying this, but don't elaborate much beyond that...I'm not sure how multiple gods are somehow less susceptible to corrupting influence (or whatever you want to call it) than a single one. Most every polytheistic culture I can think of had at least one god of war somewhere in their pantheon, and most of them had plenty of devotees willing to ply them with sacrifices.

After all, we all know the victors write the history.

Ah, now it's coming back to me...I remember this from the last time you brought this whole thing up. Whenever someone mentioned some horrible atrocity committed by polytheists the response was "the monotheists who eventually conquered them must have made it all up." I'm also starting to remember why I was somehow hesitant to bother posting on this matter again, because I'm arguing with a preconceived conclusion.

While this is true reality shows us that monotheism keeps fueling lots of violent groups and this will remain so as long as monotheism exists.

And when/if it ceases to exist we'll find some other excuse to screw with each other, from "we need more territory for our population" to "those guys did something mean to us and we need to get them back" to "I don't particularly care for their skin color" to "because we're stronger than you and you have no chance of making us stop". No supernatural spurs needed.

[spadgy]

I'm personally a casual atheist, and still not convinced entirely either way with any religious structure and mindset in terms of being something as absolute as purely 'good' or 'bad'. But as long as we remember the people of Islamic faith are as varied as any large group, and thus there's good ones and bad ones, then we're cool, I'm sure. I have faith most people remain good, Islamic or otherwise (and I'm sure most of us a mix of good and bad).

Sometimes I'm tempted to blast all religion, but I do remember the positive sides of it can do great things for community.

[Michaelm]

I'm not sure how multiple gods are somehow less susceptible to corrupting influence (or whatever you want to call it) than a single one. Most every polytheistic culture I can think of had at least one god of war somewhere in their pantheon, and most of them had plenty of devotees willing to ply them with sacrifices.

You answer your own question without knowing.
The one god is all those gods in one. So when monotheists say god is behind us, polytheists cannot necessarily say the same for the simple fact there are more gods.
Most of those gods have nothing to do with war whatsoever too and they can hardly be found to be pro war whereas the single god implies it is fully. Therefore the danger is far greater in monotheism then in polytheism.

Whenever someone mentioned some horrible atrocity committed by polytheists the response was "the monotheists who eventually conquered them must have made it all up."

Now you're just trying to turn the argument around. I mentioned monotheism is very dangerous. Someone mentioned polytheism was too according to our history. I tried to make some valid points which you are trying to do off as nonsense while in the past decade we have all witnessed the powers that be even making up current events in their favor to bring the public opinion to acceptance of war. There is now enough proof it has been made up or completely falsified. We still have to wait and see if in 100 years or so that knowledge of the falsification will still be in the history books.
Anyway, I'm not saying polytheists never did anything wrong. I'm only trying to explain why the inherent danger of monotheism is not in polytheism.

And when/if it ceases to exist we'll find some other excuse to screw with each other, from "we need more territory for our population" to "those guys did something mean to us and we need to get them back" to "I don't particularly care for their skin color" to "because we're stronger than you and you have no chance of making us stop". No supernatural spurs needed.

Prolly but one big ongoing war igniter will finally be dealt with and world peace may have a chance.

[BulletMagnet]

The one god is all those gods in one. So when monotheists say god is behind us, polytheists cannot necessarily say the same for the simple fact there are more gods.
Most of those gods have nothing to do with war whatsoever too and they can hardly be found to be pro war whereas the single god implies it is fully.

That's completely inane. Every edition of monotheism describes its god as both peaceful and warlike, depending on what his will supposedly is at the moment; in like manner, polytheists have both peaceful and warlike deities to invoke at their convenience. Heck, a bunch of the latter are also said to embody qualities other than war at times (Athena from Greek mythology and Freya from Norse, for instance); in either case the priest or whoever can simply say "G/god wants us to fight" or "G/god wants us to be peaceful" and that's that. And in both cases some people have at times debated whether or not G/god truly wants what the priests say he/they want, while others follow the official edicts blindly; I have no idea what the crucial difference is supposed to be here.

We still have to wait and see if in 100 years or so that knowledge of the falsification will still be in the history books.

In the meantime you certainly seem to be hedging your bets.

Prolly but one big ongoing war igniter will finally be dealt with and world peace may have a chance.

As much as I like to believe in the better angels of our nature, I can only say "good luck with that" to this particular sentiment.

[Michaelm]

That's completely inane....I have no idea what the crucial difference is supposed to be here.

I think you must have some idea as its the first time I hear of a monotheist god being warlike.
I've heard of it being punishing to so called sinners to the faith but I've never heard of it being warlike or even having changing wills.
Christianity even wants you to turn the other cheek to the enemy who just punched you in the face.
I have never heard a monotheist state their beloved deity is warlike unless it's one of those of whom you say that are using monotheism as a convenient excuse.
Even when atrocities are being committed in the name of the deity the non-violent monotheists keep insisting their deity only preaches peace, harmony and forgiveness.
And they always state the same, their religion is being used, always.
Anyway, the arguments that can be made in the case of monotheism vs polytheism wont hold up in the case of monotheism vs other ism's.

In the meantime you certainly seem to be hedging your bets.

What is that supposed to mean ? It would certainly not be the first time stuff like that happens.

As much as I like to believe in the better angels of our nature, I can only say "good luck with that" to this particular sentiment.

I really hope you are not trying to state here that without monotheism we would all be barbarians only capable of violence to each other.

There are lots of other theism's and monotheists always pick polytheism to compare against.
Prolly cause its such a convenient pick being more or less the opposite, like good and bad are.
I'm not an expert in all the religions, by far. But there must be plenty of religions with no god at all. I'd choose those over monotheism or polytheism anytime.

I really wonder what special thing monotheism brings over any of the other religions ?
Personally I see none whatsoever but I do see the inherent danger in it like I have tried to explain.

Some other unfortunate and possibly dangerous concept of monotheism, and yes polytheism supposedly has that too, is the afterlife.
In Dutch we have a saying: "Na mij, de zondvloed" translated "After me, the deluge".
Which means ppl giving shit about the state of the world after their own death.
They'll be in the eternal afterlife enjoying themselves with virgins or whatever so why would they care.

In other religions they believe in reincarnation. That's a much more constructive way of seeing things.
Ppl would know they could come back on this world and might actually be worried of the state of the world when they die because of that.

But as we all know unfortunately it was monotheism that rose to power some 2000+ years ago and has managed to keep that power ever since until education started becoming more widespread and now they are losing it.
Chrsitianity grew the most as it was the chosen religion by the western elites who colonized other territories and 'converted' those populations but they are getting smaller by the day.
The jews seem something special as they are more like a real sect where you can only be born into or first memorize the whole torah or so before you're accepted but over the ages a small portion of them has managed to become some of the richest ppl in the world.
Only islam still manages to grow somehow and islam is the one spreading the most violence the last decades. That's a peculiar connection comparable to christianity's rise.

Even if the last argument would be that monotheism still gives ppl hope some other religion could do exactly the same without keeping the inherent danger intact.

[BulletMagnet]

I think you must have some idea as its the first time I hear of a monotheist god being warlike.

Seriously? Dude, crack open a Bible sometime, there are LOADS of places where God both commands his followers to (both literally and figuratively) go to battle in his name or starts raining down fire and sulfur himself, and any so-called believer who pretends they don't exist is deluding himself. In other instances, of course, he and his prophets tell their followers to be peaceful. I've never read the Koran, but the considerable divide between radical and moderate Muslim behavior methinks much the same holds true for that book as well, depending on which parts you feel like emphasizing. There's almost literally no difference between that manner of selective reading/interpretation and choosing which polytheistic god to evoke.

I really hope you are not trying to state here that without monotheism we would all be barbarians only capable of violence to each other.

No, I'm not (and frankly I have no idea how you might infer that from what I said), but I am stating that eradicating religion isn't the linchpin to achieving world peace. To be perfectly frank, for all the atrocities that have been committed and continue to be committed in the name of G/god, some of the most monstrous people ever to walk the earth, those who have done and continue to do tremendous damage to both society and the species as a whole, are doing so from a purely secular perspective - if the religious warmongers vanished tomorrow their replacements would already have moved in by lunchtime and taken over right where they left off, because they have no more interest in solving the real problems that lead to war than the extremists did.

[Michaelm]

Seriously? Dude, crack open a Bible sometime, there are LOADS of places where God both commands his followers to (both literally and figuratively) go to battle in his name or starts raining down fire and sulfur himself, and any so-called believer who pretends they don't exist is deluding himself. In other instances, of course, he and his prophets tell their followers to be peaceful. I've never read the Koran, but the considerable divide between radical and moderate Muslim behavior methinks much the same holds true for that book as well, depending on which parts you feel like emphasizing. There's almost literally no difference between that manner of selective reading/interpretation and choosing which polytheistic god to evoke.

So you're saying that monotheists are full of shit when they say their beloved deity preaches peace. Now we're getting somewhere.

No, I'm not (and frankly I have no idea how you might infer that from what I said), but I am stating that eradicating religion isn't the linchpin to achieving world peace. To be perfectly frank, for all the atrocities that have been committed and continue to be committed in the name of G/god, some of the most monstrous people ever to walk the earth, those who have done and continue to do tremendous damage to both society and the species as a whole, are doing so from a purely secular perspective - if the religious warmongers vanished tomorrow their replacements would already have moved in by lunchtime and taken over right where they left off, because they have no more interest in solving the real problems that lead to war than the extremists did.

I stated monotheism should be eradicated, I didn't say all religion should be eradicated. I'm missing your point.
And you are missing the point that monotheists are more easily convinced to go to war for their deity. It's just a very simple fact it is so.

I also noticed you still need to use polytheism to make your point in favor of monotheism. It just doesn't hold up for the other religions and you know that.
There is also no special positive thing of monotheism you can think of or you would have answered that question.
In the end it seems it comes down to not wanting to admit the failure monotheism is cause it affects your personal life too much.
I understand it's hard admitting you've been living a lie and losing all so called hope that monotheism has provided you without ever having to think for yourself.
But it doesn't change the facts in any way.

[BulletMagnet]

So you're saying that monotheists are full of shit when they say their beloved deity preaches peace.

If they claim he only preaches peace, yes.

And you are missing the point that monotheists are more easily convinced to go to war for their deity. It's just a very simple fact it is so.

I don't know how much of this is due to the language barrier, but I have yet to see you make a single convincing argument to this end on here, though you seem to be basing most everything else you've said upon it.

In the end it seems it comes down to not wanting to admit the failure monotheism is cause it affects your personal life too much.

Dude, I'm an agnostic, and have plenty of issues with organized religion, monotheistic ones very much included - that said, if I'm going to criticize something, I like to make sure that I'm not pulling stuff out of my backside to do it, and the whole "one god is worse than a whole bunch of them" angle doesn't make a lick of sense to me, and I have no reason to pretend it does because you and I may agree on other, larger points.