The Islamophobia split on the left.

[jackelgull]

Ah, so are you saying I should be a social reject because I am a Muslim?

 

[Smote]

Ah, so are you saying I should be a social reject because I am a Muslim?

Yes, sticking to beliefs based on faulty reasoning should cause you to lose esteem in the eyes of others. Of course, I would expect others to be compassionate as well. But also to think less of you, intellectually.

 

[bhsup]

^ And that's why (well one reason) I will never vote for an atheist for high office.

 

[Smote]

^ And that's why (well one reason) I will never vote for an atheist for high office.

Explain?

 

[jackelgull]

Yes, sticking to beliefs based on faulty reasoning should cause you to lose esteem in the eyes of others. Of course, I would expect others to be compassionate as well. But also to think less of you, intellectually.

I suppose being ranked 15th for GP average doesn't mean anything anymore.

And the minute anyone accepts the existence of God they are using faulty reasoning, since their is no proof of God's existence, yet people still do it. In the end all religions look ludicrous to outsiders. I'll stick to my beliefs and you can have yours, thank you very much.

 

[bhsup]

I was agreeing with you. Faulty reasoning (believing there is no God) prevents me from ever voting for an atheist for high political office. The thought of an atheist President scares me a hell of a lot more than the thought of a Muslim President.

 

[Smote]

Believing there is no god is rather simple.

Why should there be one god given by a certain religion, and not the god of all the rest? Or the greek pantheon? Or any other religion? If one exists, the rest all must be mistaken. This can be said of any of them. The most plausible answer is that none of them are correct.

Some believe that God exists because humans do and we are too sophisticated to have come about naturally. I point to evolution as a counterexample.

Some believe that God exists because of consciousness, but it is clearly based on the brain, since brain damage causes the conscious mind to perhaps lose memory or language skills.

Some believe that God exists because of the religious experience of devotion created by praying to him, and the feeling of being accepted by God. This feeling can be achieved in other ways - like by mindfulness meditation. It is an experience that need not be connected to God.

Some believe that God exists because humans have morals that we follow to be good people, and God instilled these in us. It can be argued that this is of evolutionary benefit and evolved naturally. Morals are common in many without belief in God as a prerequisite.

Would you like me to expand on any of these, or is there an additional point to consider? How is believing there is no God faulty reasoning? I have pointed out ways that believing in God is faulty reasoning. Why do you believe in God?

 

[JollyRoger]

I was agreeing with you. Faulty reasoning (believing there is no God) prevents me from ever voting for an atheist for high political office. The thought of an atheist President scares me a hell of a lot more than the thought of a Muslim President.

You are an atheist in regards to only one less God than me.

 

[Borachio]

Believing there is no god is rather simple.

Why should there be one god given by a certain religion, and not the god of all the rest? Or the greek pantheon? Or any other religion? If one exists, the rest all must be mistaken. This can be said of any of them. The most plausible answer is that none of them are correct.

Some believe that God exists because humans do and we are too sophisticated to have come about naturally. I point to evolution as a counterexample.

Some believe that God exists because of consciousness, but it is clearly based on the brain, since brain damage causes the conscious mind to perhaps lose memory or language skills.

Some believe that God exists because of the religious experience of devotion created by praying to him, and the feeling of being accepted by God. This feeling can be achieved in other ways - like by mindfulness meditation. It is an experience that need not be connected to God.

Some believe that God exists because humans have morals that we follow to be good people, and God instilled these in us. It can be argued that this is of evolutionary benefit and evolved naturally. Morals are common in many without belief in God as a prerequisite.

Would you like me to expand on any of these, or is there an additional point to consider? How is believing there is no God faulty reasoning? I have pointed out ways that believing in God is faulty reasoning. Why do you believe in God?

Yes. But don't we need to consider that not believing in God isn't exactly the same as believing there is no God?

And besides you make no mention of the nature of God here. So, I'm at a bit of a loss whether to agree with you that no God exists or to disagree, since I don't know what kind of God you're talking about. How can I agree, or disagree, if I don't know what I'm agreeing, or disagreeing, about?

 

[jackelgull]

Believing there is no god is rather simple.

Why should there be one god given by a certain religion, and not the god of all the rest? Or the greek pantheon? Or any other religion? If one exists, the rest all must be mistaken. This can be said of any of them. The most plausible answer is that none of them are correct.

Some believe that God exists because humans do and we are too sophisticated to have come about naturally. I point to evolution as a counterexample.

Some believe that God exists because of consciousness, but it is clearly based on the brain, since brain damage causes the conscious mind to perhaps lose memory or language skills.

Some believe that God exists because of the religious experience of devotion created by praying to him, and the feeling of being accepted by God. This feeling can be achieved in other ways - like by mindfulness meditation. It is an experience that need not be connected to God.

Some believe that God exists because humans have morals that we follow to be good people, and God instilled these in us. It can be argued that this is of evolutionary benefit and evolved naturally. Morals are common in many without belief in God as a prerequisite.

Would you like me to expand on any of these, or is there an additional point to consider? How is believing there is no God faulty reasoning? I have pointed out ways that believing in God is faulty reasoning. Why do you believe in God?

You can argue against particular religions being true, but can you argue against the idea of God? I mean, who created the atom and the universe? Who created the laws upon which science rests?
Morals aren't evolutionary though- they are cultural constructs and not universally shared. Some are, but cultures disagree on things like women's rights.

 

[Tahuti]

Believing there is no god is rather simple.

Why should there be one god given by a certain religion, and not the god of all the rest? Or the greek pantheon? Or any other religion? If one exists, the rest all must be mistaken. This can be said of any of them. The most plausible answer is that none of them are correct.

I actually try to reconcile them. Some may be partially incorrect. In the end, this is more logical than writing them all off, on accounts of apparent inconstistencies.

 

[Smote]

Yes. But don't we need to consider that not believing in God isn't exactly the same as believing there is no God?

Its not totally the same. I don't believe there is a god that instills all this stuff, because there are more reasonable explanations for every phenomenon, backed by evidence. When people say God exists, they generally mean the god of their faith that has done all this stuff, and is capable of much more, and has all these different qualities. If you are asking in general whether any being more powerful than humans exists, sure, maybe there is something out there. But I don't believe in any of the gods posited by current human religions.

Specific belief in a certain god does not have the benefit of reasonable scientific explanations, backed by evidence.

 

[onejayhawk]

In this case the assumption would be justified, but it was an example to illustrate a broader point - namely, that it's a fairly silly idea to claim to know how all members of an ethnic group think.

I never said ethinic group. It's how all members of the human race think. Everyone has deeply ingrained, not truly rational biases. Some try to control them. Others try to defend theirs as correct. Arabes are part of the second group. They admit to being superior.

J

 

[Smote]

You can argue against particular religions being true, but can you argue against the idea of God? I mean, who created the atom and the universe? Who created the laws upon which science rests?
Morals aren't evolutionary though- they are cultural constructs and not universally shared. Some are, but cultures disagree on things like women's rights.

I cannot argue against the idea, but I can argue against the belief. Belief in strange things without evidence causes people to act on these beliefs in ways that can cause harm to other people. For instance, belief in a soul at conception, like many Christians do, can greatly hinder stem cell research and cause doctors to be unable to save dying patients. Belief in the rewards awaiting a jihadist in the afterlife can cause him to become a mass murderer.

Similarly, belief in God without evidence might have other sorts of consequences that are harmful to society. Maybe it can inspire other beliefs without evidence that are more harmful.

In regards to morals, I meant that current day morals, like the positive quality of compassion and altruistic behavior, are reasonable things for natural selection to favor in humans. I agree that morals are a societal construct, but humans are predisposed to empathize with eachother. Our brains are constructed in this way.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, yes, there is a trend for not assigning beliefs to groups not explicitly united by beliefs, but that's only because trying to do so is stupid. If people explicitly thought that being an Arab meant hating Israel, then you'd be right, but being an Arab just means feeling a sense of common identity with other Arabs, just as being an Englishman means feeling a common identity with other Englishmen. Would you say it's correct to say that all Israelis hate Arabs?

Zionist would be a comparable term; "Israeli" just means anyone with Israeli citizenship. No, Zionists do not hate Arabs. Some do. But in different historical circumstances, hatred of Arabs might have become a corollary of Zionism, even if not every single Zionist went along with it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No. It leads to the conclusion that Islam is a tool. It says nothing about whether Islam is a source of violence. I still claim that Islam is a significant source of violence. This is simply evident in the reasons jihadists give for their actions. Do you really believe every jihadist is lying? The thing is- they likely have similar core values to most of us, but because of certain Islamic beliefs they are twisted into considering terrorism the best means to do the right thing.

More evidence that Islam is a violent religion is given in your very reasoning. You state that it's an effective tool towards leading people to violence. Isn't that in itself a problem? Nazism was another effective tool. Why not tolerate that doctrine too?

So how about answering the question you snipped from my post?

By the way, about every religion can be used like this effectively. Or do you really think that if Christianity had been the major religion in the area, we'd have seen very different results?

 

[onejayhawk]

Mouthwash: are you aware of what fascism is?

Wikipedia's definition of it seems pretty reasonable to me.

I can give examples in the Arab world for 90% of what's described there.

Wikipedia's definition of it seems pretty reasonable to me.

I can give examples in the Arab world for 90% of what's described there.

Nailed that one.

Takhisis, give this up before you get embarrassed, more embarrassed.

If we're to believe Mouthwash and others, Arabs are apparently driven by one thing; their hatred of Israel

Good so far.

and that prior to Israel's existence they literally had nothing else binding them

While there is some justice in your conclusion, it is a significant overstatement.

There seems to be a lot of "It's not like that here." thinking going on. This sort of kill-the-outsider thinking is very common. Individually, people are caring and compassionate, but generally to those they know. I may not be at risk from my neighbors, or you from yours. But I am at risk from your neighbors and you from mine.

When we turn on our neighbors, it gets ugly fast.

J

 

[Arakhor]

Takhisis, give this up before you get embarrassed, more embarrassed.

As embarrassing as double-posting the same quote, perhaps?

 

[Smote]

Would you tell the liberal Muslims you meet they're not following Islam, since the doctrine is supposed to be a violent one?

No, I would not. I understand that each person follows their religion in their own way. Some of these ways are more acceptable to society than others. Any that depend on blind faith tend to be more dangerous.

I try to be tactful, also. I don't harass religious people about their beliefs. I just enjoy discussing it with them, and occasionally attempting to point out things that I find ridiculous. Everyone should treat each other decently.

By the way, about every religion can be used like this effectively. Or do you really think that if Christianity had been the major religion in the area, we'd have seen very different results?

The problem with Islam, specifically, is the ideas of Jihad and martyrdom. These are not present in the other religions. So yes, I think there would be different results. I am sure there would still be violence, but it would likely be of a different nature.

Christianity and Judaism have had many more centuries than Islam to reform themselves. It needs to adapt to the modern world.

 

[Flying Pig]

Christians were doing holy war and martyrdom before Islam even existed!