Pictures of Mo

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Pictures of Mo

So I was doing some research on the Quaran and I found that it actually does not say "you can't draw Muhammad". Apparently only third party teachings are the reason why Muslims are so upset. These third party teachings are sort of like the precepts in Buddhism or what they call the "8 Fold Path". These opinions are modified by each sect and used differently through out the world. Some believe one set, the other believers follow another set.

So what or why is it that so many Muslims say "The Quaran said so..."?

I find this to be a good example of how Christians claim "The bible said so..." but when you exam the bible for the actual quote given it doesn't exist.

So this is an eye opener to me. When people tell me they are Muslim I assumed that they were practicing and were well versed in the Quaran. However after this little bit of research it has shown me that Muslims don't know their holy teachings as well as they seem to profess. It also shows me that the followers of ISIS and other radical views are just opinions. They aren't following actual teachings of Muhammad. They are following third party teachings and most likely are fighting for greedy purposes.

Greedy purposes like land, power, money and fulfillment of their own egotistical desires.

(edit)

Which brings me to an amazing revelation about Muslims.

They say that you aren't allowed to depict Muhammad because it might lead to worshiping of of an idol. Yet as all of us know, if you say, "Hey I met this girl the other day and she had giant tits and brown hair..." You would most likely form a visual representation in your mind of what they are describing.

Given that the Quaran gives the physical description of Muhammad in the Quaran, I mean literally in detail, ALL MUSLIMS FORM A DEPICTION OF MUHAMMAD IN THEIR MINDS. They all have a picture of what he looks like in their mind.

Hmmm. Wow. That blows my mind that this is a possible wide spread example of hypocrisy in the world of Islam.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Does not matter if it did

 Does not matter if it did say that. The bible does say not to make graven images. And all three have absurd dietary demands that have no bases in scientific reality. I find the idea that any claim of any of these gods being "all powerful" absolutely absurd and immoral if it's top priority is to worry about getting picked on.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 My understanding is that

 My understanding is that the hadith stems from observations of Muhammed from those close to him shortly after he died. They wanted to record as much as possible before those who knew him died too. It a collection of things he said and did. It is considered divine law. It isn't comparable with Christianity because the Quran isn't viewed as the answer to all things like the Bible. Allah gave us the prophet Muhammed to teach us, so anything he said or did was divine law. Nor do I think it is comparable to precepts in Buddhism, because as far as I know, Buddhists don't view those as law.

The Shia believe that the Imam lineage is also divine and therefore whatever an Imam says is divine law, they reject any of the hadith that comes from those who were not directly related to Muhammed.

I could e wrong, my understanding of Islam (or Buddhism) is very superficial. But coming from a culture that is overwhelmingly Christian, I think we have to be careful making comparrisons. Christianity is the basis for our legal systems and culture far more than many of us care to admit. Comparing the quran to the bible is apples to oranges. Muslims don't see it the same way Christians see the bible.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Hadith, Bible, Torrah,

 Hadith, Bible, Torrah, Talmud, Jesus, Oracle, yadda yadda yadda. There is no such thing as a prophet, and nobody has a tin foil hat or magic bat phone in which they communicate with fictional invisible super heros.

Kudos to those who have the patience to deconstruct yellow brick road claims and books. I am not one of those with that patinece. Holy books are comic books and no one has ever spoken to a god.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Hadith,

Brian37 wrote:

 Hadith, Bible, Torrah, Talmud, Jesus, Oracle, yadda yadda yadda. There is no such thing as a prophet, and nobody has a tin foil hat or magic bat phone in which they communicate with fictional invisible super heros.

Kudos to those who have the patience to deconstruct yellow brick road claims and books. I am not one of those with that patinece. Holy books are comic books and no one has ever spoken to a god.

 

Unlike you, some of us actually try to understand people who disagree with us. It is hard to have a rational conversation with someone if you are rudely dismissive and impossible to persuade anyone if you can't relate to their beliefs.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Hadith,

Brian37 wrote:

 Hadith, Bible, Torrah, Talmud, Jesus, Oracle, yadda yadda yadda. There is no such thing as a prophet, and nobody has a tin foil hat or magic bat phone in which they communicate with fictional invisible super heros.

Kudos to those who have the patience to deconstruct yellow brick road claims and books. I am not one of those with that patinece. Holy books are comic books and no one has ever spoken to a god.

 




thank you for finally admitting you've never read a word of the books you constantly criticize.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Does not

Brian37 wrote:

 Does not matter if it did say that. The bible does say not to make graven images. And all three have absurd dietary demands that have no bases in scientific reality. I find the idea that any claim of any of these gods being "all powerful" absolutely absurd and immoral if it's top priority is to worry about getting picked on.

The dietary laws are absurd NOW and long outdated. But in the middle east of 3000 years ago without refridgeration and salt trading on a par with gold thus avoiding pork and shell fish not mixing dairy with meat made perfect sense, for scientific reasons; even though they wouldn't understand the concept of scientific observation. They did observe and turned some good ideas into a "god's law".

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:Brian37

Jeffrick wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

 Does not matter if it did say that. The bible does say not to make graven images. And all three have absurd dietary demands that have no bases in scientific reality. I find the idea that any claim of any of these gods being "all powerful" absolutely absurd and immoral if it's top priority is to worry about tpicked on.

The dietary laws are absurd NOW and long outdated. But in the middle east of 3000 years ago without refridgeration and salt trading on a par with gold thus avoiding pork and shell fish not mixing dairy with meat made perfect sense, for scientific reasons; even though they wouldn't understand the concept of scientific observation. They did observe and turned some good ideas into a "god's law".




i don't know that i agree with the dairy part. the original law was not to never mix dairy with meat. it was not to "seethe a kid in its mother's milk," which was apparently a canaanite custom. forbidding that practice was a way for the israelites to distinguish themselves from the canaanites. not mixing dairy and meat at all (or even using the same dishes or utensils for them) was a later mishnaic interpretation in the old tradition of "building a hedge around the torah," i.e. taking the law to the extreme so that you can be sure you are in absolutely no danger of breaking it.


the indians have used dairy in their cooking heavily for centuries, in particular yoghurt, curd, and of course ghee, whether meat was involved or not, and most of india is hotter than palestine.


regardless, many of the dietary restrictions do appear irrational to us today, but usually only christian apologists insist they were for health reasons. most of the time, it was probably in reaction to the dietary habits of the surrounding pagan tribes, in an effort to be a people "set apart." plenty of people in the middle east ate pork at that time, presumably as safely as anything else, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered making a law about it. coming from a farming and hunting family, and butchering my own pork even to this day, i can tell you as far as spoiling goes, no meat is really more prone to it than any other. you leave meat out in the sun or heat and it spoils, whether it's pork or beef or mutton or what have you.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Bullshit.........I used to

 Bullshit.........I used to believe myself. I know how it is to want something to be true. You are confusing rights with claims. You don't like my word choice, that is all this amounts too.

You think I have no empathy for those who hold beliefs I do not? That is bullshit too. 

When I am cussing religion out, it is at the IDEA itself. Humans are not physically what they claim, humans hold claims and ideas. 

I would have absolutly no problem with Ann Frank or Malala or Martin Luther King Jr being my neighbor or even being part of my family. And I have always had in my life friends and family who do believe. But this is not about human rights. This is about when you utter something to the point it it becomes political and especially to the point it treads on the rights of others, that is when it matters to me. Unfortunately since humans don't like proving what they claim it is a never ending battle.

 

You seriously think I would disown my mother who is Catholic? Do you seriously think I'd leave any religious person bleeding in the street because they make bat shit insane claims I know are nutty? I wouldn't even leave you or Ibwick bleeding in the street if you need help. Time place and context matter. If no one is being murdered and all they are getting is offended, then they have a choice to counter, request or leave. But no one has the right to demand the silence of others. ESPECIALLY when those bad ideas affect the rights of others.

 

You simply do not like me and that is all this amounts to. 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

 Bullshit.........I used to believe myself. I know how it is to want something to be true. You are confusing rights with claims. You don't like my word choice, that is all this amounts too.

You think I have no empathy for those who hold beliefs I do not? That is bullshit too. 

When I am cussing religion out, it is at the IDEA itself. Humans are not physically what they claim, humans hold claims and ideas. 

I would have absolutly no problem with Ann Frank or Malala or Martin Luther King Jr being my neighbor or even being part of my family. And I have always had in my life friends and family who do believe. But this is not about human rights. This is about when you utter something to the point it it becomes political and especially to the point it treads on the rights of others, that is when it matters to me. Unfortunately since humans don't like proving what they claim it is a never ending battle.

 

You seriously think I would disown my mother who is Catholic? Do you seriously think I'd leave any religious person bleeding in the street because they make bat shit insane claims I know are nutty? I wouldn't even leave you or Ibwick bleeding in the street if you need help. Time place and context matter. If no one is being murdered and all they are getting is offended, then they have a choice to counter, request or leave. But no one has the right to demand the silence of others. ESPECIALLY when those bad ideas affect the rights of others.

 

You simply do not like me and that is all this amounts to. 

 

 




and this is pertinent to the current discussion how? you've really lost your mind.


and yes, brian, i don't like you, and by now, that is what all this amounts to, since i realized about two years ago that logical
discussion with you is impossible. i admitted that several weeks ago. i'm not disagreeing with you on that point. you're absolutely right. i don't fucking like you.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 As someone who has

 As someone who has butchered a few pigs, I can fully understand the guy who came home and said "Honey, God doesn't want us to eat pork, it is unclean", especially before the invention of bacon. Lambs are so much easier.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: You simply

Brian37 wrote:

 

You simply do not like me and that is all this amounts to. 

 

 

 

                                                                          So buy a scoped rifle, climb a clock tower with it and set things right.   You'll feel better, I promise.

 

                                                                

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:Brian37

Jeffrick wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

 Does not matter if it did say that. The bible does say not to make graven images. And all three have absurd dietary demands that have no bases in scientific reality. I find the idea that any claim of any of these gods being "all powerful" absolutely absurd and immoral if it's top priority is to worry about getting picked on.

The dietary laws are absurd NOW and long outdated. But in the middle east of 3000 years ago without refridgeration and salt trading on a par with gold thus avoiding pork and shell fish not mixing dairy with meat made perfect sense, for scientific reasons; even though they wouldn't understand the concept of scientific observation. They did observe and turned some good ideas into a "god's law".

Accidentlally making an observation does not mean you understand what you are observing. The series Cosmos pointed out all sorts of common observations, where separate groups throughout history made up their own myths about their observations. Images in stars and fear of comits were all over the map in global history. 

Newton got physics right but also postulated Alchemy and getting physics right did not make the god he believed in real. Arabs invented algebra but that does not make Allah a real god.

The natural explination for avoiding that food is because people got sick if they did not cook pork properly. Hebrews back then simply had no way of knowing the scientific reality as to why they chose not to eat pork.  And if you say it is out dated and I agree it is, why should those today avoiding pork today for religious reasons, never be told it was a result of a superstition? By law they certainly should be allowed to avoid pork today, sure. But no one else is under any obligation to never mention the bad logic that lead to them thinking that a god told them to.

It was understandable back then. It looks silly now. In scientific reality, if you eat fully cooked pork, you will not get sick, and you will not be punished by a fictional god for doing so.  In Penn's book "God No" he has a story where he takes a former Jew out to dinner after a show, and discribes the the guy being relieved after eating the bacon cheesburger knowing nothing bad would happen to him.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: As

Beyond Saving wrote:

 As someone who has butchered a few pigs, I can fully understand the guy who came home and said "Honey, God doesn't want us to eat pork, it is unclean", especially before the invention of bacon. Lambs are so much easier.

I'm sure. Gut any live animal and their guts even without all the blood is going to stink really bad. I admit, I am a pussy when it comes to killing animals. Love to eat some of them, but couldn't do that.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 As someone who has butchered a few pigs, I can fully understand the guy who came home and said "Honey, God doesn't want us to eat pork, it is unclean", especially before the invention of bacon. Lambs are so much easier.

I'm sure. Gut any live animal and their guts even without all the blood is going to stink really bad. I admit, I am a pussy when it comes to killing animals. Love to eat some of them, but couldn't do that.

Most animals don't stink bad if you don't cut the intestines. And it isn't so much the stench with pigs as the way the fat sticks to your hands and greases everything up. Tough enough in cold storage where the fat solidifies, an absolute nightmare in unregulated heat. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Accidentlally

Brian37 wrote:

Accidentlally making an observation does not mean you understand what you are observing. 

Just make that your sig. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Accidentlally making an observation does not mean you understand what you are observing. 

Just make that your sig. 

 

rofl

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I got home last night and

I got home last night and saw 15 new messages and exclaimed, "wow must be a hot topic" but then I remembered Brian was among us.

I'll respond to multiple items in one message

 

@Brian - [facepalm] come on dude stay on the subject. I think you set a new record on getting off topic.

@the rest of you - I am under the impression that hadiths are traditions only and very few muslims follow them, while the ones who do follow them have vastly different interpretations.

There are various ideas I've had concerning drawing a 'muhammad' depiction. What is I started an emoticon 6/w/9 is this wrong? What if I drew a yellow smiley face and put "Muhammad says, "Have a nice day!"?

Then going back to my suggestion that making an image of Muhammad in your mind is no better or worse than actually drawing the face on paper.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Beyond Saving

iwbiek wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Accidentlally making an observation does not mean you understand what you are observing. 

Just make that your sig. 

 

rofl

lol i was thinking the same thing


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:the

digitalbeachbum wrote:
the rest of you - I am under the impression that hadiths are traditions only and very few muslims follow them, while the ones who do follow them have vastly different interpretations



hadith are essentially reported words of and reminiscences about muhammad, his family, and close companions. there are several different collections of hadith, and it depends on the sect, legal school within that sect, and even the individual legal scholar which hadith will be referred to. there are four main legal schools within sunni islam and they differ in which collections they recognize.


i believe the shi'as have their own collections but hadith aren't nearly as important in shi'i islam as in sunni islam, as shi'as believe that human reason is a reliable source of legal judgments alongside religious traditions, whereas sunni scholars insist on precedence in the sunna to make their decisions.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
the rest of you - I am under the impression that hadiths are traditions only and very few muslims follow them, while the ones who do follow them have vastly different interpretations

hadith are essentially reported words of and reminiscences about muhammad, his family, and close companions. there are several different collections of hadith, and it depends on the sect, legal school within that sect, and even the individual legal scholar which hadith will be referred to. there are four main legal schools within sunni islam and they differ in which collections they recognize.
i believe the shi'as have their own collections but hadith aren't nearly as important in shi'i islam as in sunni islam, as shi'as believe that human reason is a reliable source of legal judgments alongside religious traditions, whereas sunni scholars insist on precedence in the sunna to make their decisions.

I still wonder what the belief is if a muslim draws muhammed in their mind as to drawing it on paper. The whole point of the 'teaching' is to avoid having an idol to worship. Yet, people form images in their mind and the worship those.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:iwbiek

digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
the rest of you - I am under the impression that hadiths are traditions only and very few muslims follow them, while the ones who do follow them have vastly different interpretations

hadith are essentially reported words of and reminiscences about muhammad, his family, and close companions. there are several different collections of hadith, and it depends on the sect, legal school within that sect, and even the individual legal scholar which hadith will be referred to. there are four main legal schools within sunni islam and they differ in which collections they recognize.
i believe the shi'as have their own collections but hadith aren't nearly as important in shi'i islam as in sunni islam, as shi'as believe that human reason is a reliable source of legal judgments alongside religious traditions, whereas sunni scholars insist on precedence in the sunna to make their decisions.

I still wonder what the belief is if a muslim draws muhammed in their mind as to drawing it on paper. The whole point of the 'teaching' is to avoid having an idol to worship. Yet, people form images in their mind and the worship those.




this is only a comparatively recent phenomenon in islamic history. throughout the middle ages and into the modern period, muhammad was depicted in turkish and persian murals, sometimes with his face veiled, sometimes not. as many people pointed out a few years ago during the whole south park controversy (concerning the episode about portraying muhammad, which actually did portray muhammad but was censored with a black box by comedy central at the last minute), south park already had portrayed muhammad in an earlier episode with no backlash at all.


as salman rushdie said in a recent interview, the recent rise of muslim extremism is mostly political and is not at all accidental. for decades now, the wahhabist house of saud (sunni) and the iranian government (shi'i) have been funneling billions of dollars into making sure that prominent muslim primary schools, mosques, and seminaries all over the world are staffed with extremist mullahs, so that even succeeding generations of muslim children will be taught extremist views. the saudis and iranians have highjacked islam, and it's working. why do you think muslim extremism has only spiked within the last 30 years or so? saudi arabia became the world's leading producer of oil in 1976. the iranian revolution happened in 1979. the same year, islamist extremists (many of them paid by the new government of iran) seized control of the grand mosque in mecca in protest of the "un-islamic" government of the saudis. the saudis crushed this uprising, but one result of it was the implementation of stricter religious norms in saudi arabia and a greater role in the government being given to the ulema.


the whole portraying of muhammad thing is useful to the extremist politicians because it's an easy line to draw and a quick way to polarize the west and the islamic world. i'll tell you this: there is nothing the islamist politicians want less than for the west to convert, or at least conform to shariah. then their role would become superfluous, the money would stop flowing, and they would lose what power they have. just like the western military industry, the last thing they want is for the fighting to end.


the reason everyday muslims have not stopped the extremists is the same reason everyday americans were not able to stop the 2003 invasion of iraq: the media campaign and the financial resources of the saudis and the iranian ayatollahs are just too great and too widespread. the fact of the matter is, many everyday muslims are raising their voices in protest of extremism, but we westerners in our rush to blame islam as a whole (because, after all, it's easier to do that and requires no thought or study on our part), refuse to believe it, or refuse to believe it's enough, because we're not seeing the results we want right away. in our western countries, where we're used to, for example, being able to write angry letters to our congressmen and get a responses in a matter of weeks, we just can't understand why the "moderate muslims" (whom we're starting to believe don't really exist because, hey, we don't read about them and most of us have never met a "real muslim" in our lives) don't just do something about it already, goddammit!


finally, as salman rushdie also pointed out, and we in the west with our egocentric worldview constantly forget (because if it's happening in the world, it must be about us somehow), islamism is ultimately about a war of ideologies within islam, and the west is only peripheral. anger against western ideals is a useful tool of the islamists because they can point to the encroachment of those ideals into the secularized muslim world, for example north africa before the "arab spring" and turkey. many, many more muslims have been the targets and casualties of extremists than westerners. the reason the islamist leaders would never want the west to change is that they would lose their power and credibility within the muslim world, which is where the islamists want to rule. they have no real interest in "taking over" europe or the west.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Random thoughts

 

Sometimes I think religion is useful because it is allows collective irrational thinking - it creates unity, a unity we don't have. Muslims love Mo. But consider the Western secular position. I think Mo very probably did not exist, but the idea of Mo paints him as a slave trader, war lord, killer of unbelievers. Not a nice guy. Worst of all he was prepared to terrorise his followers with a monstrous god concept. Of course, those first infidels were the Arabs in the town down the road. Arabs are the victims, terrorised by their doctrine. They are violent because they fear hellfire. But plenty of great leaders were monsters. Julius Caeser claimed to have enslaved 1 million Gauls. The western allies burned Germans and Japanese alive. And various western governments drop bombs on muslim weddings. Our secular side can hardly claim we don't use violence. Can we hands down condemn violence against us? Probably not. It's much easier for literal muslims. They don't have to worry about nuance. Whatever is not islam is wrong. It's hard to see how this friction is going to end in the longer term. Probably very badly. I think liberals will go on trying to understand the literal islamic viewpoint right up until the conservative masses, in justifiable or non-justifiable self defence, elect a blunt instrument. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 It's much easier for literal muslims. They don't have to worry about nuance. Whatever is not islam is wrong. It's hard to see how this friction is going to end in the longer term. Probably very badly. I think liberals will go on trying to understand the literal islamic viewpoint right up until the conservative masses, in justifiable or non-justifiable self defence, elect a blunt instrument. 

                     In Burma / Myanmar the majority Buddhists are the blunt intrument being used to pummel the minority Muslims with lethal violence.   Muslims are generally despised and sometimes risk extermination in mini "pogroms"   www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/06/massacre-muslims-myanmar_n_3554547.html

 

                                                                             

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 It's much easier for literal muslims. They don't have to worry about nuance. Whatever is not islam is wrong. It's hard to see how this friction is going to end in the longer term. Probably very badly. I think liberals will go on trying to understand the literal islamic viewpoint right up until the conservative masses, in justifiable or non-justifiable self defence, elect a blunt instrument. 

                     In Burma / Myanmar the majority Buddhists are the blunt intrument being used to pummel the minority Muslims with lethal violence.   Muslims are generally despised and sometimes risk extermination in mini "pogroms"   www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/06/massacre-muslims-myanmar_n_3554547.html

 

                                                                             

A good example of buddism being taken hostage by a radical nut sack who teaches violence rather than peace.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
the rest of you - I am under the impression that hadiths are traditions only and very few muslims follow them, while the ones who do follow them have vastly different interpretations

hadith are essentially reported words of and reminiscences about muhammad, his family, and close companions. there are several different collections of hadith, and it depends on the sect, legal school within that sect, and even the individual legal scholar which hadith will be referred to. there are four main legal schools within sunni islam and they differ in which collections they recognize.
i believe the shi'as have their own collections but hadith aren't nearly as important in shi'i islam as in sunni islam, as shi'as believe that human reason is a reliable source of legal judgments alongside religious traditions, whereas sunni scholars insist on precedence in the sunna to make their decisions.

I still wonder what the belief is if a muslim draws muhammed in their mind as to drawing it on paper. The whole point of the 'teaching' is to avoid having an idol to worship. Yet, people form images in their mind and the worship those.


as salman rushdie said in a recent interview, the recent rise of muslim extremism is mostly political and is not at all accidental. for decades now, the wahhabist house of saud (sunni) and the iranian government (shi'i) have been funneling billions of dollars into making sure that prominent muslim primary schools, mosques, and seminaries all over the world are staffed with extremist mullahs, so that even succeeding generations of muslim children will be taught extremist views. the saudis and iranians have highjacked islam, and it's working. why do you think muslim extremism has only spiked within the last 30 years or so? saudi arabia became the world's leading producer of oil in 1976. the iranian revolution happened in 1979. the same year, islamist extremists (many of them paid by the new government of iran) seized control of the grand mosque in mecca in protest of the "un-islamic" government of the saudis. the saudis crushed this uprising, but one result of it was the implementation of stricter religious norms in saudi arabia and a greater role in the government being given to the ulema.
the whole portraying of muhammad thing is useful to the extremist politicians because it's an easy line to draw and a quick way to polarize the west and the islamic world. i'll tell you this: there is nothing the islamist politicians want less than for the west to convert, or at least conform to shariah. then their role would become superfluous, the money would stop flowing, and they would lose what power they have. just like the western military industry, the last thing they want is for the fighting to end.
the reason everyday muslims have not stopped the extremists is the same reason everyday americans were not able to stop the 2003 invasion of iraq: the media campaign and the financial resources of the saudis and the iranian ayatollahs are just too great and too widespread. the fact of the matter is, many everyday muslims are raising their voices in protest of extremism, but we westerners in our rush to blame islam as a whole (because, after all, it's easier to do that and requires no thought or study on our part), refuse to believe it, or refuse to believe it's enough, because we're not seeing the results we want right away. in our western countries, where we're used to, for example, being able to write angry letters to our congressmen and get a responses in a matter of weeks, we just can't understand why the "moderate muslims" (whom we're starting to believe don't really exist because, hey, we don't read about them and most of us have never met a "real muslim" in our lives) don't just do something about it already, goddammit!
finally, as salman rushdie also pointed out, and we in the west with our egocentric worldview constantly forget (because if it's happening in the world, it must be about us somehow), islamism is ultimately about a war of ideologies within islam, and the west is only peripheral. anger against western ideals is a useful tool of the islamists because they can point to the encroachment of those ideals into the secularized muslim world, for example north africa before the "arab spring" and turkey. many, many more muslims have been the targets and casualties of extremists than westerners. the reason the islamist leaders would never want the west to change is that they would lose their power and credibility within the muslim world, which is where the islamists want to rule. they have no real interest in "taking over" europe or the west.

Brilliant


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: Can

Atheistextremist wrote:

 Can we hands down condemn violence against us? Probably not. It's much easier for literal muslims. They don't have to worry about nuance. Whatever is not islam is wrong. It's hard to see how this friction is going to end in the longer term. Probably very badly. I think liberals will go on trying to understand the literal islamic viewpoint right up until the conservative masses, in justifiable or non-justifiable self defence, elect a blunt instrument. 

Humans tend to be violent. I don't think peace is possible unless every one learns the leasson that I learned. Violent acts are an irrational acts. They are pointless and driven by desires of the ego.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Humans

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Humans tend to be violent.

  Undeniably true.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
I don't think peace is possible unless every one learns the leasson that I learned.

 

  So why don't you just lay it on the line what your beliefs actually are in specific terms and stop being so god damned cryptic about them ?

 

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Violent acts are an irrational acts. They are pointless and driven by desires of the ego.

 

       So you say.

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I agree

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 Can we hands down condemn violence against us? Probably not. It's much easier for literal muslims. They don't have to worry about nuance. Whatever is not islam is wrong. It's hard to see how this friction is going to end in the longer term. Probably very badly. I think liberals will go on trying to understand the literal islamic viewpoint right up until the conservative masses, in justifiable or non-justifiable self defence, elect a blunt instrument. 

Humans tend to be violent. I don't think peace is possible unless every one learns the leasson that I learned. Violent acts are an irrational acts. They are pointless and driven by desires of the ego.

 

unreservedly that doctrinal exhortations to violence are an irrational argument. That violence of itself (if not an act of defence against a specific act of violence), is irrational.

I wonder, why are violent doctrines and doctrines that villify not illegal?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Humans tend to be violent.

  Undeniably true.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
I don't think peace is possible unless every one learns the leasson that I learned.

  So why don't you just lay it on the line what your beliefs actually are in specific terms and stop being so god damned cryptic about them ? 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Violent acts are an irrational acts. They are pointless and driven by desires of the ego.

       So you say.

I'm never cryptic about my views. I've been on these forums for seven years (has it been that long?) and by now you should know them.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 Can we hands down condemn violence against us? Probably not. It's much easier for literal muslims. They don't have to worry about nuance. Whatever is not islam is wrong. It's hard to see how this friction is going to end in the longer term. Probably very badly. I think liberals will go on trying to understand the literal islamic viewpoint right up until the conservative masses, in justifiable or non-justifiable self defence, elect a blunt instrument. 

Humans tend to be violent. I don't think peace is possible unless every one learns the leasson that I learned. Violent acts are an irrational acts. They are pointless and driven by desires of the ego.

 unreservedly that doctrinal exhortations to violence are an irrational argument. That violence of itself (if not an act of defence against a specific act of violence), is irrational.

I wonder, why are violent doctrines and doctrines that villify not illegal?

can one defend with out being violent


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 Can we hands down condemn violence against us? Probably not. It's much easier for literal muslims. They don't have to worry about nuance. Whatever is not islam is wrong. It's hard to see how this friction is going to end in the longer term. Probably very badly. I think liberals will go on trying to understand the literal islamic viewpoint right up until the conservative masses, in justifiable or non-justifiable self defence, elect a blunt instrument. 

Humans tend to be violent. I don't think peace is possible unless every one learns the leasson that I learned. Violent acts are an irrational acts. They are pointless and driven by desires of the ego.

 unreservedly that doctrinal exhortations to violence are an irrational argument. That violence of itself (if not an act of defence against a specific act of violence), is irrational.

I wonder, why are violent doctrines and doctrines that villify not illegal?

can one defend with out being violent

 

As I said, "That violence of itself (if not an act of defence against a specific act of violence), is irrational." 

It's an annoyingly grey area and the more nuance applies, the more paralysis sets in. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I'm

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I'm never cryptic about my views. I've been on these forums for seven years (has it been that long?) and by now you should know them.

 

      Holy shit, you just gave an evasive / cryptic answer in response to being accused of being evasive  / cryptic.

 

          You mean your constant refrain of  "EGO BAD !!!"  Thanks for that insightful gem of wisdom digital,  our problems are solved.

 

 

 

    

 

     

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I'm never cryptic about my views. I've been on these forums for seven years (has it been that long?) and by now you should know them.

      Holy shit, you just gave an evasive / cryptic answer in response to being accused of being evasive  / cryptic.

          You mean your constant refrain of  "EGO BAD !!!"  Thanks for that insightful gem of wisdom digital,  our problems are solved.     

Troll.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

As I said, "That violence of itself (if not an act of defence against a specific act of violence), is irrational." 

It's an annoyingly grey area and the more nuance applies, the more paralysis sets in.  

I misunderstood you. That's what I get for not getting enough sleep.

As for violent doctrines/doctrines that villify, good question. I think that it comes down to cherry picking. You have people who support each because it fits their needs.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
If Muhammed looked like

If Muhammed looked like this  would radical Muslims get upset?


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Troll.

 

       My ego made me do it.

 

   

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian/ProzacDeathWish

Brian/ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Troll.

My ego made me do it.

How true. 

I'll also point out the answer to your rant was my third line in the original post.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
      

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
I'll also point out the answer to your rant was my third line in the original post.

 

          Geez, all you said was "These third party teachings are sort of like the precepts in Buddhism or what they call the 8 fold path"   

     

                    Any student of religion could make the same observation and without being a Buddhist.  But that's okay, I'll leave you and the lessons you've learned   ( whatever they actually are )  to your inscrutable ways.  

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian/ProzacDeathWish

Brian/ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Humans tend to be violent. I don't think peace is possible unless every one learns the leasson that I learned. [THAT]Violent acts are an irrational acts. They are pointless and driven by desires of the ego.

 

Any student of religion could make the same observation

So I'll assume you are neither a student of religion or able to make observations


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The vast majority of

The vast majority of violence is done in self defence. It may be emotional or irrational self defence, but it remains self defence. Defence of property, defence of self, defence of others, defence of status, defence of livelihood. The only non-defensive violence tends to be the kind used by serial killers and sociopaths. Though I suspect all or most of them can also be classified as defensive, even though it may be difficult to comprehend what exactly is being defended.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbrian37 wrote: 

digitalbeachbrian37 wrote:

 

 

 I don't think peace is possible unless every one learns the leasson that I learned. [THAT]Violent acts are an irrational acts. They are pointless and driven by desires of the ego.

 

 

                      So basically ...EGO BAD.   kind of like RELIGION IS POISON.     or PAIN HURTS. 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbrian37 wrote:

 

 

 I don't think peace is possible unless every one learns the leasson that I learned. [THAT]Violent acts are an irrational acts. They are pointless and driven by desires of the ego.

 

 

                      So basically ...EGO BAD.   kind of like RELIGION IS POISON.     or PAIN HURTS. 

Bad is an opinion. Ego is. Religion is poison to the beholder. No pain doesn't hurt.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

                      So basically ...EGO BAD.   kind of like RELIGION IS POISON.     or PAIN HURTS. 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Bad is an opinion.

 

     So far you're the only one on this forum whose habit it is to continually denigrate the human ego.  ( In fact, I'd say that you are suffering from ego-phobia )

 

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Ego is.

 

  Ego is .....what ?          Did you lose your train of thought or are you just trying to sound esoteric again ?

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Religion is poison to the beholder.

 

   I'm sure Brian37 will be pleased to read that comment.

 

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
No pain doesn't hurt.

 

                 Hunh ?  Ah, semantics   .... you're so clever.

      

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:
I don't think peace is possible unless every one learns the leasson that I learned.

So why don't you just lay it on the line what your beliefs actually are in specific terms and stop being so god damned cryptic about them ?

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Violent acts are an irrational acts. They are pointless and driven by desires of the ego.

So you say.

I have tested the 4 Noble Truths and found them to be truthful. I learned several times during my life, when I was going through difficult times, that the anguish I was experiencing was created by me rather than the variables around me. When I realized this truth I was able to eliminate my confusion. I became peaceful and calm. Irrational thought, acts and speech left my daily routine. Yes, I still have things in my life which cause different fustration but every day I learn and improve. I am not the angry, spiteful and hateful person I decades ago. I believe based on my experiences that any human can take these techniques and eliminate violence from their life. They can think rationally with out being controlled by irrational desires of their ego.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Funny, I vehemently disagree

Funny, I vehemently disagree with the first of those so-called noble truths. I have found immense satisfaction in things that were temporary. Knowing they were temporary didn't make them less satisfying. On the contrary, some were actually more satisfying because they were temporary.

Since the first truth isn't true, and the rest are predicated on the first, they must all be false.

I guess I'm not buddhist material. > >

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 It's much easier for literal muslims. They don't have to worry about nuance. Whatever is not islam is wrong. It's hard to see how this friction is going to end in the longer term. Probably very badly. I think liberals will go on trying to understand the literal islamic viewpoint right up until the conservative masses, in justifiable or non-justifiable self defence, elect a blunt instrument. 

                     In Burma / Myanmar the majority Buddhists are the blunt intrument being used to pummel the minority Muslims with lethal violence.   Muslims are generally despised and sometimes risk extermination in mini "pogroms"   www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/06/massacre-muslims-myanmar_n_3554547.html

 

                                                                             

A good example of buddism being taken hostage by a radical nut sack who teaches violence rather than peace.

That is cherry picking history and picking one sect of Buddhism. Asia and the orient have the same history of fighting amongst themselves and Buddhism has not stopped it anymore than Taoism or Shinoism did. Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate is in our evolution, not the religions humans belong to.

ALL RELIGIONS in human history are really nothing more than the excuses humans make to justify tribalism to set up social pecking orders. Buddhism does not get a pass either.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Any good or kind motif or

 Any good or kind motif or act dipicted in religious writting or tradition can be found in different detail in all religions. That should tell humans that it is US doing the good and that good is comming from our evolution, not our artificial placebos. Saying religion does good, is a very bad excuse to ignore this reality.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:ALL RELIGIONS

Brian37 wrote:
ALL RELIGIONS in human history are really nothing more than the excuses humans make to justify tribalism to set up social pecking orders. Buddhism does not get a pass either.

False, as usual.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Brian37

Vastet wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
ALL RELIGIONS in human history are really nothing more than the excuses humans make Nto justify tribalism to set up social pecking orders. Buddhism does not get a pass either.
False, as usual.

Show me one religion that can be proven a scientific necessity to fuck and make a baby. Seriously, you might as well believe in a god yourself if you are going to defend such a crappy position.

 

Funny how our species managed to fuck before the written religions. Funny how our primate cousins managed to fuck and reproduce even prior to our existence.

Religion works like a sugar pill. Religions come and go. Religion hijacks what is in our evolution and twists it to comic book political levels to the point of division. The only thing it is good for is setting up tribes. It has no more value than the comfort belief in Santa has for a kid.

Recognizing that religion will happen, should not be an excuse to ignore that it is nothing more than Kaliedoscope thinking. It is born out of our species ignorance. Human rights have nothing to do with bad ideas. Our sperm and eggs are why we are here and if you accept that then don't coddle bullshit claims. Religion IS NOT required for evolution to take place. It only exists as a flaw in our species perceptions.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Show me one

Brian37 wrote:
Show me one religion that can be proven a scientific necessity to fuck and make a baby.

Red herring.

Brian37 wrote:
Seriously, you might as well believe in a god yourself if you are going to defend such a crappy position.

Admission of ignorance.

Brian37 wrote:
Funny how our species managed to fuck before the written religions. Funny how our primate cousins managed to fuck and reproduce even prior to our existence.

Irrelevant. People didn't have cars before religion. If I used your flawed logic, I could conclude that religion is directly or indirectly responsible for everything except sex. If sex is all you want out of life, religion can't stop you. Therefore your entire position on everything is pointless and ridiculous.

Brian37 wrote:
Religion works like a sugar pill.

No it doesn't. Not in any way, shape, or form.

Brian37 wrote:
Religions come and go.

And keep coming. More religions have been invented than have died, and that will continue until all sentient life is permanently extinguished.

Brian37 wrote:
Religion hijacks what is in our evolution and twists it to comic book political levels to the point of division. The only thing it is good for is setting up tribes. It has no more value than the comfort belief in Santa has for a kid.

False, as usual.

Brian37 wrote:
Recognizing that religion will happen, should not be an excuse to ignore that it is nothing more than Kaliedoscope thinking.

So what's your excuse then?

Brian37 wrote:
It is born out of our species ignorance.

Wrong again.

Brian37 wrote:
Human rights have nothing to do with bad ideas.

Irrelevant.

Brian37 wrote:
Our sperm and eggs are why we are here and if you accept that then don't coddle bullshit claims.

I don't coddle, which is why I constantly oppose your bullshit hypocrisy and ignorance.

Brian37 wrote:
Religion IS NOT required for evolution to take place.

Yes actually, it is. We would not be here if humans hadn't evolved to create religion. Accept it, move on.

The saddest irony about your absolute stupidity is that you are most likely to push people into religion. Noone will ever be convinced to abandon it on your say so. Fortunately people like me exist to put idiots like you in their place, and actually can convince people to abandon their foolish beliefs.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.