Another First World Muslim Joins ISIS

[Old Hippy]

I believe we are going off topic. If there is nothing more to say about this topic, I should probably request it to be locked.

it seems very relevant and on topic to me, as to why first worlders go off and join foreign religious inspired terrorist groups

 

[Traitorfish]

That's actually very true. If the function of religion is ensuring social cohesion, then why does religion seem to be inspiring these young men do the very opposite of... socially cohesing, I'm not sure how to phrase that. It's a few steps of abstraction away from the OP, but it's not irrelevant.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm just surprised that abortion, MSM, and the ark haven't been mentioned yet.

But it does pose an interesting question. If a humanist eventually comes into power in the Middle East, will he call upon other humanists to wage secular jihad on the religious fanatics?

 

[Old Hippy]

I'm just surprised that abortion, MSM, and the ark haven't been mentioned yet.

But it does pose an interesting question. If a humanist eventually comes into power in the Middle East, will he call upon other humanists to wage secular jihad on the religious fanatics?

that would take us full circle and the US would have to invade to get rid of another Saddam,

 

[Sanguivorant]

Sadam was a secular ruler BTW. However his people weren't so he returned to using religious rhetoric.

 

[Formaldehyde]

that would take us full circle and the US would have to invade to get rid of another Saddam,

All the humanists who supported them in the US would be labeled terrorists.

Sadam was a secular ruler BTW. However his people weren't so he returned to using religious rhetoric.

Obama is also a secular ruler, much to the chagrin of the evangelists, while still being a Christian. Hussein was very much a Sunni.

 

[Old Hippy]

Sadam was a secular ruler BTW. However his people weren't so he returned to using religious rhetoric.

only if you apply goody two shoes religious definitions to humanist...

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). The meaning of the term humanism has fluctuated, according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it.[1] Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of a "human nature" (sometimes contrasted with antihumanism).

In modern times, humanist movements are typically aligned with secularism and with non-theistic religions.[2] Historically however, this was not always the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Spoiler :

A Ba'athist society seeks enlightenment, renaissance and rebirth of Arab culture, values and society. It supports the creation of single-party states, and rejects political pluralism in an unspecified length of time – the Ba'ath party theoretically uses an unspecified amount of time to develop an enlightened Arabic society. Ba'athism is based on principles of Arab nationalism

 

[Bootstoots]

I still don't understand. How do you religiously worship humanity?

I don't understand those big school words like Randroidism. Just use normal people words so I can understand what you're talking about.

He means Objectivism, the dogmatic belief in Ayn Rand's ideology.

 

[Masada]

Obama is also a secular ruler, much to the chagrin of the evangelists, while still being a Christian. Hussein was very much a Sunni.

Sorta, kinda. Saddam was a secular sort of dude, who was also a Sunni Arab who favored other Sunni Arabs. He hated Kurds, most of whom were fellow Sunnis, and seems, generally, to have had a better relationship with Arab Shiites despite the difference in religion. Granted, he killed a bunch of both. But he was at heart a Sunni and an Arab Nationalist. Really, the whole thing starts making a lot of sense if you stop thinking of Sunni Arabs as a religious group and start thinking of them as a privileged economic and political caste that just happens to coincide with being Arab and Sunni. It might help if you think of Saddam as a WASP with White People being Arabs and the Protestant part being Sunni. So he <3'ed white people, but liked white people who were Protestants rather more than he liked white people generally. His non-whites, Kurds mostly, despite being the right faith weren't white and so were open to killing (like African Americans in America!). So were his other whites because, well, Shiites in Iraq look a lot like Papists complete with the whole hierarchical structure and whiff of external (Iranian) interference.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's like Prods and Catholics in Ulster. The God stuff is kind secondary to the in-group stuff.

 

[Sanguivorant]

A pity and unfortunate, but that was true at the time.

Though he can be accredited for preventing the Sunnis and Shias from fighting each other.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Sorta, kinda. Saddam was a secular sort of dude, who was also a Sunni Arab who favored other Sunni Arabs. This makes a lot of sense if you stop thinking of Sunni Arabs as a religious group and start thinking of them as a privileged economic and political caste.

It even makes sense if you consider them to be both Sunni Arabs and the privileged economic and political caste, which they clearly were.

Both Iraq and Iran should now be shining examples of secularism and democracy in the region. That is if it wasn't for the incessant meddling of the West in their affairs due to the oil.

 

[Tahuti]

It smacks of a phobia towards atheism and agnosticism to me.

I am myself rather close agnosticism. While I am vaguely a theist, I cannot be placed into hard categories of Jewish, Christian or Muslim and I remain distinctively undeceided on which accounts are true and not.

Okay, well: why?

Human reason is too limited. A society needs its leap of faith, not just individually, in the Kierkegaardian sense, though collectively.

That's actually very true. If the function of religion is ensuring social cohesion, then why does religion seem to be inspiring these young men do the very opposite of... socially cohesing, I'm not sure how to phrase that. It's a few steps of abstraction away from the OP, but it's not irrelevant.

Because Islam offers far more meaning and social cohesion than the Quasi-Objectivism of the West.

 

[Traitorfish]

Human reason is too limited. A society needs its leap of faith, not just individually, in the Kierkegaardian sense, though collectively.

Well, again, why?

Because Islam offers far more meaning and social cohesion than the Quasi-Objectivism of the West.

You think it offers more meaning and social cohesion to Westerners? And if so, why did these particular Westerners find that this meaning obliged them to directly reject social cohesion and take on the role of vagabond-adventurers?

 

[Old Hippy]

Because Islam offers far more meaning and social cohesion than the Quasi-Objectivism of the West.

thats only a couple of leaps in faith away, from buying a plane ticket to the middle east...

 

[Sanguivorant]

I think Pan-Islamism also plays a role here. It is a command in he Quran for Muslims to remain united, which these guys interpret as unity in all aspects. They secretly desire a mega state composed of all the Muslim majority countries not just Iraq and the Levant.

 

[Masada]

Though he can be accredited for preventing the Sunnis and Shias from fighting each other.

Hahaha, no he can't. He caused the biggest outbreak of sectarian strife in modern pre-invasion Iraqi history.

I think Pan-Islamism also plays a role here. It is a command in he Quran for Muslims to remain united, which these guys interpret as unity in all aspects. They secretly desire a mega state composed of all the Muslim majority countries not just Iraq and the Levant.

You ever read the Bible, bub?

 

[Tahuti]

Well, again, why?

At the risk of severely complicating the thread, here goes:

Note how I said human reason was limited? We need a concept of something great that exists indepedently of mankind. We are strictly speaking unfit of governing ourselves and even the best monarchs are not perfect, let alone bad monarchs or the average of their subjects. Religion's gift to society - outside of bringing salvation to individuals - is the bridging of that shortcoming of mankind, by showing how the universe is ordered outside of humans and even anything measurable, usually embodied in the idea of god. This provides societies with purpose and vision, which becomes a source of morality.

Now, morality can also exist without religion and be conceived completely rationally. Yet, this is an inferior form of morality, because that will - and with it a society's dreams and identity - will be limited to that what an individual human mind can create. And we are very limited.

That is not to say I consider religion a noble lie, as I do believe most religions present supernatural claims that are true, and can bring salvation to individuals. This argument is simply to show the gift of religion to society at large.

You think it offers more meaning and social cohesion to Westerners? And if so, why did these particular Westerners find that this meaning obliged them to directly reject social cohesion and take on the role of vagabond-adventurers?

I think the creed that underlies the false religion of modern Western society was coined by Mrs. Thatcher.

 

[Old Hippy]

Now, morality can also exist without religion and be conceived completely rationally. Yet, this is an inferior form of morality, because that will - and with it a society's dreams and identity - will be limited to that what an individual human mind can create. And we are very limited.

That is not to say I consider religion a noble lie, as I do believe most religions present supernatural claims that are true, and can bring salvation to individuals. This argument is simply to show the gift of religion to society at large.

your just saying religious belief is true, because it's truer, a belief that your beliefs are better because you believe

I think the creed that underlies the false religion of modern Western society was coined by Mrs. Thatcher.

something she said that was taken out of context, till her dying day

 

[Traitorfish]

At the risk of severely complicating the thread, here goes:

Note how I said human reason was limited? We need a concept of something great that exists indepedently of mankind. We are strictly speaking unfit of governing ourselves and even the best monarchs are not perfect, let alone bad monarchs or the average of their subjects. Religion's gift to society - outside of bringing salvation to individuals - is the bridging of that shortcoming of mankind, by showing how the universe is ordered outside of humans and even anything measurable, usually embodied in the idea of god. This provides societies with purpose and vision, which becomes a source of morality.

Now, morality can also exist without religion and be conceived completely rationally. Yet, this is an inferior form of morality, because that will - and with it a society's dreams and identity - will be limited to that what an individual human mind can create. And we are very limited.

That is not to say I consider religion a noble lie, as I do believe most religions present supernatural claims that are true, and can bring salvation to individuals. This argument is simply to show the gift of religion to society at large.

You say that humans aren't capable of governing themselves, but you're not actually suggesting that they can do other than govern themselves, only that they should not be allowed to realise that they are governing themselves. What you're proposing is an infantile fetish: God as a doting parent rendered on a celestial scale, relieving us from meaningful responsibility in our lives. You're not expressing scepticism in the capacity of human reason, here, you're expressing a fear of having to rely on it, and that isn't anti-modern, it's just immature.

edit: Now we really have strayed off-topic...