No need for "thanks". I hate Sam Harris and this is not his position. How should I "respect the situation"? These religions HAVE changed in the past and they can and will change again. Sects of Christianity have been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, other sects haven't. Both their religious texts and their interpretation of those verses has changed. I speak about religion generally because Islam is not any more egregious than Christianity/Hinduism ect. Many Muslims don't interpret the texts the same way this fundamentalist did when he beheaded the teacher over a cartoon. I'm not interested in painting any certain religion as especially harmful, but I also recognize that more Islamic sects need to update their interpretation to be in line with objective humanitarian principles we associate with the developed modern world. (Equity, freedom of expression, textual criticism, ect) Its not a pronouncement that they MUST do this, it's a recognition of the fact that the modern world is incompatible with dogma that portrays women as objects, proscribes death for satirical cartoons, and refuses to recognize fundamental human rights. Why don't you tell me which blanket assertions I've made? That religion is a net negative globally? Maybe you should try approaching this debate without blanket assumptions about me in relation to other more prominent atheists.
Man decapitated near Paris, police confirm to Euronews [Up: 9 further arrests, see threadmark]
- Thread starter Senki Dala
- Start date
No need for "thanks". I hate Sam Harris and this is not his position. How should I "respect the situation"? These religions HAVE changed in the past and they can and will change again. Sects of Christianity have been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, other sects haven't. Both their religious texts and their interpretation of those verses has changed. I speak about religion generally because Islam is not any more egregious than Christianity/Hinduism ect. Many Muslims don't interpret the texts the same way this fundamentalist did when he beheaded the teacher over a cartoon. I'm not interested in painting any certain religion as especially harmful, but I also recognize that more Islamic sects need to update their interpretation to be in line with objective humanitarian principles we associate with the developed modern world. (Equity, freedom of expression, textual criticism, ect) Its not a pronouncement that they MUST do this, it's a recognition of the fact that the modern world is incompatible with dogma that portrays women as objects, proscribes death for satirical cartoons, and refuses to recognize fundamental human rights. Why don't you tell me which blanket assertions I've made? That religion is a net negative globally? Maybe you should try approaching this debate without blanket assumptions about me in relation to other more prominent atheists.
I especially bolded your statement "People saying fuck religion are on the right side historically and morally." in my response. I don't see it as a particularly useful approach to assessing the situation, finding solutions, or even moving the discussion with the key stakeholders involved.
The belief that the book is perfect is in itself a radical position. Moderates hide behind "faith" and serious mental gymnastics to justify abhorrent verses and make it seem like their religious text is perfect. Both Muslims and Christians are notorious for their bullshit "but the Holy Book predicted science all along!" crap where they pull out the most insane interpretations to make their book seem supernatural. They force their books to be relevant and even supersede science.
There are MANY "moderate" and "rational" apologist bullshit religious people on YouTube that radicals turn to, in order to deepen their radicalization. If you grow up thinking your religious books are perfect, or that you alone have the one true god, those are beliefs that will encourage people to be radical. And these are considered moderate beliefs. They aren't. They are bullshit.
If you genuinely believe your religion is the one true way, or has the perfect book, or that your prophets are untouchable good guys, then those are radical beliefs, and you can't be surprised radicals come from your religion.
I can't take religious people seriously. Ever since some of my family members "found God", they've become extremely shitty people, even voting for racists because their religion depends on it. Then there's the whole "my God is better and more real than yours" bullshit these people try to push, which just really shows they have no idea they're fighting over imaginary beings they've never even seen. People are so embarrassingly stupid and this will be true until the end of time. If you need religion you're only contributing to the problems it has brought into this world, because you can't function without it. Fuck religion.
Thats not Sam Harris' position. Whether or not it is your opinion a "useful" approach is irrelevant. The facts are that religion is a net negative globally and that the currently prevalent interpretations of the Qaran/Bible are more problematic than the criticism they rightfully receive. I don't see how coddling extremists helps the key stakeholders "find solutions". It's irrelevant to the truth of whether or not these texts and their interpretations are incompatible with modern human rights. They are, full stop.
I mean I'm pretty sure that's a core tenet of Islam, similar to Jesus being the son of God in Christianity. "Radical" would imply it's something believed only by the extremist fringe.
That's also "a core tenet" of Christianity. But only the radical Christians interpret that part of the book literally. Meaning that they excuse parts of the book as figurative. Which, may not be intellectually honest but it does mean they don't bring the slavery/rape/genocide parts of the Bible into their daily life/ politics. That's less problematic than interpreting the entire book literally and trying to enforce it as the one true faith.
I am sorry but that just sounds wrong. These groups change because they want to. Humans progress and change the interpretation of the their own texts. They don't do it because some external force dragged them into it. The atheists play a big part in exposing flaws and challenging beliefs but they play little part in actually changing the interpretation. Religious people feel unconformable with their own beliefs and they gradually change them.
Last edited:
They are Western supported fanatics. They all have Saudi Islamic beliefs. Do you research. All these terrorists belong to the same sect.
Where did I say atheist dragged them? I didn't. Secular society and laws dragged them into the future. They didn't have as much latitude as they had in the past under theocracy. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I am not saying other groups don't do it. I am simply stating that in this particular context of Muslim terrorism of the last two decades, they are all of a certain sect. The Bin Ladens the ISIS are all from one group. I don't know about other Muslim terrorism in the past but ever since the Iraq war all these terrorists have been Saudi linked Wahabists. And Western governments are partially to blame for being friends with the Saudis.
Wahhabism to ISIS: how Saudi Arabia exported the main source of global terrorism
Although IS is certainly an Islamic movement, it is neither typical nor mired in the distant past, because its roots are in Wahhabism, a form of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia that developed only in the 18th century.
www.newstatesman.com
My point is this needs to be tackled at the source.
Well then good thing I didn't say the one group committing these atrocities is muslims, I said that it's religious fundamentalists. So your point doesn't apply to what I said. I'm very familiar with Wahhabism. And it represents a fundamentalist interpretation of the Qaran. I agree with you that we should attack this at the source, the source being the religions themselves. Like another poster said, if the moderates prop up a book that says kill the infidels and it is the only true faith, then it shouldn't be shocking that fundamentalists believe that. Same as in Christianity with abortion clinic bombings.
More news.
https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-div...-les-onze-gardes-a-vue-18-10-2020-8403780.php
There are now 11 people put on watch.
The parents, grandfather and 17 year old brother of the assailant.
Two of the parents who were unhappy with the victim. One of them posted the victim's name and address in a video and in another video, asks people to "mobilize against the teacher". He tried suing the teacher for "showing pornography" to his daughter (who apparently wasn't even in class).
Then there is a guy who was already flagged for serious threat for national security, who was in cahoots with the plaintiff mentioned above. The site says he is the main catalyst of this attack.
Also, there were crowds all over France of people expressing their sympathy for the late teacher.
Many of them even have put the cartoon drawing from Charlie Hebdo on their signposts as well.
https://www.leparisien.fr/video/vid...rer-qu-on-n-a-pas-peur-18-10-2020-8403826.php
https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-div...-les-onze-gardes-a-vue-18-10-2020-8403780.php
There are now 11 people put on watch.
The parents, grandfather and 17 year old brother of the assailant.
Two of the parents who were unhappy with the victim. One of them posted the victim's name and address in a video and in another video, asks people to "mobilize against the teacher". He tried suing the teacher for "showing pornography" to his daughter (who apparently wasn't even in class).
Then there is a guy who was already flagged for serious threat for national security, who was in cahoots with the plaintiff mentioned above. The site says he is the main catalyst of this attack.
Also, there were crowds all over France of people expressing their sympathy for the late teacher.
Many of them even have put the cartoon drawing from Charlie Hebdo on their signposts as well.
https://www.leparisien.fr/video/vid...rer-qu-on-n-a-pas-peur-18-10-2020-8403826.php
That you can't divorce religion from yourself as part your intrinsic identity to the point where it's criticism makes you feel unwelcome is honestly just an indictment how toxic religions is.
Like imagine if I replicated that stance for a game that people on Era dislike. That would be just a ridiculous to feel unwelcome because of that.
Sadly it's a thing too.
Also please quote the post that says "fuck all religions" you actually can't cause people have general written more nuanced criticism. Which makes you come off even more of a close minded clown that just in here to victimize themselves, while trying to avoid any all responsibility from the bad that religion is doing.
Last edited:
I do think that this can be discussed without broad generalizations of the religion.
Islamophobia and using language such as calling the religion a "Cancer" has lead to a big rise in hate crimes and incidents such as Christchurch, Quebec, regular lynchings in India etc..
No mainstream Islamic scholar would ever think that this heinous crime or anything similar would be justified in any scenario.
Islamophobia and using language such as calling the religion a "Cancer" has lead to a big rise in hate crimes and incidents such as Christchurch, Quebec, regular lynchings in India etc..
No mainstream Islamic scholar would ever think that this heinous crime or anything similar would be justified in any scenario.
Hang on now, you can't just assert that criticizing religion in general has led to those terrorist incidents. Many of the perpetrators of those attacks were Christian/Hindu ect. Criticizing fundamentalist religion is absolutely not to blame for attacks on the religious, most shooters are not atheists afaik. These are attacks by religious people on other religions, further bolstering the argument that religion is the common denominator in these attacks by radicals.
I know I shouldn't read the comment section, but man... This is despair inducing...
I have no issue in criticizing the extremist / radical groups. Those weren't acts by mainstream Hindus. Radical "Hidutva" is different than the religion itself. Similarly this kind of crime would never be allowed in mainstream Islam.
The asshole stuff in the bible and the quran is hardly a matter of interpretation. The hateful content is very clear and explicit.
And that's what people in this thread have largely been criticizing. Atheists are not more responsible for the actions of fundamentalists than the moderates that support the holy books that call for the killing of infidels, stoning of harlots, slavery ect. Those moderates perpetuate the scriptures that allow for those atrocities. And I can find you scholars of both Christianity and Islam that will sanction such things.
One of the top comments is from Matt Dillahunty (the atheist experience) and he seems to have a pretty good take on it without shitting on Islam specifically:
DamnA lot of people in Paris paying hommage to the teacher. That's heartwarming at least
Yeah they'll just throw the teacher in jail instead
Source: a city governor in my country was thrown in jail for criticizing islam, and my country is one of the more moderate muslim countries (indonesia). If you did this in pakistan you probably will get the death penalty
"Rarely met with such violence"
Ahahaha
As an ex muslim, i can assure you that he's 100٪ full of shit. People in my country could be sent to jail just for saying the athan/ call to prayer is too loud, now imagine drawing muhammad in such society.
Last edited:
Thank you. And on top of all this, you dont need to poor, and beaten down by society to be an extremist. Spin every excuse and justification and lens you want. Nothing changes the fact that it was religious doctrine shared by millions of believers about the religion being superior and deserving of more authority that perpetuates these acts. No amount of flowery and basic ass verse about loving one another changes this reality of the religion.One of the top comments is from Matt Dillahunty (the atheist experience) and he seems to have a pretty good take on it without shitting on Islam specifically:
Look at how many successful, rich, and happy Christians exploit and truly believe in the religion in America to see the other side of this extremism. When you grow up thinking Jesus is saving people from sin, of course you're going to see society produce people who truly believe they are righteous over others. Regardless of the role of oppressor/oppressed, the text itself and the religion itself is outdated and promotes nonsense beliefs. And MANY Christians and Muslims justify these beliefs through apologetics instead of disavowing it and growing from it. Because their book and god being inerrant is that important to the faith.
People bend over backwards to make excuses for religion. You dont even have to behead others to be an extremist. The views in religions are inherently disgusting and exclusionary and ludicrous. The claims of inerrant books, holy prophets, rationalizing immoral acts, and misunderstanding science are extremist beliefs.
Dillahunty getting death threats is par for the course with how many religious people are fucked in the head and assume righteousness over others. You cant disqualify these people and say they arent of the faith. No one does this with police, alt-right gamers, toxic masculinity, or republicans, but god forbid someone point out religious people show similar patterns of getting extremely offended, systematically oppress criticism, and get encouraged by their beliefs to do awful things.
Moderates are shielded by "Faith". It's all personal and you cant infringe on it. And yet, when extremist actions come around, they want to act confused. "gee, how did this happen? Is it my religious books and core tenants of my religion that encourages this? No, it's everything else". Not ONCE do religious people turn inward to ask themselves if there's something wrong with their text. Not once will they consider or have talks of reform. They instead work backwards to painstakingly ensure the WHOLE WORLD-- from science to morality to history, somehow proves the inerrant nature of their book and faith.
No other belief or ideology in society is protected like this. And religious people are so privileged with this reality that merely criticizing them for it, even calling ideology a cancer for encouraging such awful ways of thinking, has them victimized at how "intolerant" others are and how uncomfortable they feel.
Last edited:
Kind of apples and oranges. Realistically you can ban physical weapons like guns or at least severely restrict access to them. For example, the UK, Japan, and China, where instead of mass shootings, there's mass stabbings and a corresponding decrease in the number of fatalities (I think, at least).
But ideas and belief systems? How'd you realistically go about banning those? And moreover, how you do stop people from inventing new ones while still holding onto the notion of a free and open society?
It's funny to me that the angry atheist stereotypes and bigoted religious conservatives of every stripe and colour share a fundamental similarity in that both attempt to deny and alter the human condition.
People have right to criticize any and all ideology, especially if they infringe upon human rights, too bad
Any religion, no matter which one, that follows the "word of God" when it encourages such hateful bile, is trash. Reformation of religions has happened countless times throughout history. Reform it, update and review the texts and change them. If you need to do some mental gymnastics to explain why things have been reformed, do it. Don't just continue to follow and excuse the hateful shit.
This is the massive problem with religion, the institutions of it. The fact that belief in something greater is marred by the words/actions of men parading as the "Word of God" - Adapt or die (The religion, not the practitioners) to be quite frank, and if you choose to let hate guide you, than good bloody riddance.
There's no need to ban religion, just ban anyone from using it to incite hatred and violence. Imprison anyone that tries to use religion as an excuse to infringe on others rights.
Absolutely, and not only are Moderates shielded by faith, they often shield extremists by propping up barbaric Bronze Age texts as "infallible" and "inerrant" without an ounce of credulity, and the fundamentalists just take this to it's logical conclusion while moderates pretend that there is zero basis for such behavior.
congrats, you're an XKCD panel now
Let's be serious here, this isn't some fresh problem with no solution. In the west, we designate some hate speech and incitement to violence as criminal, there is a limit to freedom of expression. Any tolerant society cannot remain tolerant while tolerating intolerance. So yes, we can "ban" certain speech and threats. We don't have to ban ideas though, we can defeat those with better ideas and reason. Leaving harmful ideology unchallenged allows it to fester. Subjecting then to scrutiny and criticism is the responsible thing to do, after all, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Some brain dead dumbass is probably going to blast you with "at least you've found a way to be superior than both" to deflect that you just hit upon a very important point.
I PROMISE you even if religion were to never exist crazy ass atrocities will still occur. They will just be based upon different means of discrimination. Are we seriously going to pretend Nazi Germany didn't exist?
Might as well allow racism since people will still hate other people for other reasons rite???
Flawless logic there bud
This both sidesism is gross. It's such an old and tired tactic to say "militant atheists and religious fundamentalists are so similar!" One of these groups doesn't indoctrinate kids, shield child rapists, spread lies and hate, and murder people over made-up beliefs.
But aside from that, what's with this defeatism? If the violence and ignorance that are actively promoted or at least tacitly supported by religous people--not just the extremists, but the moderates too--actually have a deeper root in the "human condition," you're suggesting we shouldn't try to alter it? Something something, naturalistic fallacy.
As for the first part of your post, it's not some Herculean task to ban discrimination, hatemongering, and deliberate misinformation. It's not exactly difficult to detect their stench.
Further, we use public education to teach kids the history of bigotry and human division along religious lines. We compare and contrast different systems of belief, how they originated, and how they shaped history. We teach critical thinking and information literacy using real-world examples, so kids gain the mental tools and filters they need to neutralize the toxic lies of bad actors who exploit people's ignorance and tribal tendencies to spread misinformation and sow division.
Nice job not reading one post above your own. Are you seriously going to pretend Nazi's didn't have this on their belts?:
really impressive historical awareness you're displaying. Nobody said only the religious commit atrocities. But only the religious regularly behead others or bomb abortion clinics over perceived slights of the their "truth".
Just for some icing on the cake, here are some quotes from Mein Kamph showing Hitler was a believer. So you can drop the nazi argument entirely:
Last edited:
It's amazing that after the 20th century people still somehow think religion is underlying causal factor (or even the major one) behind all violence and hatred. It betrays a real historical ignorance. Then adding in the "all religions are a cancer!" nonsense and it makes me feel like I'm back in peak early 2000s edgy internet atheism.
Anyway, a real horrible event. Wahhabism influenced Islamism is still a problem that no one has been able to crack.
Anyway, a real horrible event. Wahhabism influenced Islamism is still a problem that no one has been able to crack.
No shit, but religions are organized and systematic, with the weight of tradition behind them, and a gargantuan bulwark of idiot apologists who refuse to even try to separate out the bigotry and falsehood from the culture and philosophy they value so much.
It would be absurd to deny that religions are extremely effective systems for spreading and weaponizing ignorance. They're a specialized tool for manipulating people on a grand scale.
Nobody's saying that eliminating religions would eliminate the world's problems. The same way we wouldn't say banning guns would eliminate all violence and prevent the development of new weapons. But it would be a hell of a start.
No serious person believes or argues this, lol.
"It's so crazy to me that people STILL insist that germs are the only cause of poor health!"
Last edited:
It's almost as if religiously motivated attacks and killings continued to happen into the 21st century. You won't find many people here calling "all religions cancer". What you will find is many reasonable, nuanced criticisms of fundamentalist religion and advocation For human rights and freedom of expression. But you go ahead and keep perpetuating your stereotypes that make you feel above it.
This is such a bad faith argument i cant even
Islamism (aka political islam) are ruining secular countries, its not just about Wahabbism. Turkish version of islamism are pretty far away from wahabism yet the country is becoming more and more religiously backward everyday
Another thing that is simple to understand : any religious recommendation or interdiction can only apply to its believers.
It's forbidden to draw the prophet to muslims.
At the moment a religion begins to forbid things to people outside of it it becomes a dangerous thing.
And to teach that is the duty of religious authorities but that supposes they acknowledge their religion isn't above everything and for them it's often a hard pill to swallow...
It's forbidden to draw the prophet to muslims.
At the moment a religion begins to forbid things to people outside of it it becomes a dangerous thing.
And to teach that is the duty of religious authorities but that supposes they acknowledge their religion isn't above everything and for them it's often a hard pill to swallow...
I'm not religious but chalking this up to "religion" without any elaboration seems a bit facile. The vast majority of Muslims would not want this person to die and I would have to assume a guy that goes out and beheads someone for doing something like this has been a victim of unhealthy Islamist (as distinct from Islam) radicalization that starts at a young age (and often stems from early feelings of social isolation and angst, as well as cultural/political issues that religion ends up standing in as a proxy for) or else is mentally unwell
I am an atheist who grows frustrated at these situations in a way that's similar you. However, let's not try to equate Muslims with police, gamer gaters and Republicans. I feel like you know why there is sensitivity in the criticism here where there isn't any with those.
I don't think they're equating mulsims with these groups specifically, they're equating fundamentalist religious groups with them. Understanding the source of sensitivity is one thing, caping for a holy book that calls for atrocities because many of its adherents are so-called "moderates" is another. Muslims and Christians alike defend books that specifically designate women as second class in the best interpretation, chattel in the worst. We don't have to tiptoe around the toxic stuff in these religions just because "moderates" have found ways of excusing it and coming to different (more societally acceptable) interpretations. Any friction there is between the moderates, the extremists, and the holy books they cling to. As long as they want to keep holding a book up as perfect, they should expect pushback from any society that values human rights and egalitarianism.