|
Post by Zarsthor on Oct 10, 2009 1:56:03 GMT 1
I found this a very interesting short video on Islam. Though a little choppy and one sided it brought up some interesting points. Women's rights one of my favoured subjects. Men like that need a beating to understand what it feels like... Having ones cake and eating it much? As a random NPC in Mass Effect once said "A load of horse crap ma'am." This man I would love to meet just to debate with him and prove he's a biggit. Though I'll give him one thing, women in western countries are exploited and not as free as we'd like though obviously he's being a douche bag and using that out of context. I like this woman's arguement. The car is just a Donkey. lol This guy is a douche too but at least the lady pwned him. I like this ladies style right up until she ruined her speech by talking about other cultures divorce rate due to infidelity. Muslim men commit infidelty all the time but woman don't generally divorce them because of the way they will be treated for doing so. I don't think a culture that divorces without such sevre backlash is a bad thing. [youtube] www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qZPSBAW9nY&feature=related[/youtube]She makes a very good point here. But the fact that some muslim women get forced to wear the Hijab and Niqab is a problem. They shouldn't be judge for it as people but I certainly cast an eye of judgement to those who force such a thing rather than allowing the woman the choice. Lovely story
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Oct 11, 2009 12:45:02 GMT 1
I'm feeling far too lazy to watch these serious religious debates right now... but I look forward to them later!
|
|
|
Post by Knightfall on Oct 12, 2009 10:52:23 GMT 1
I don't know nearly enough about the Muslim religion as I should, but from what I know and what I've read they seem to have just taken the fundamentalist view of Christianity and ran with it to an extreme.
There's an emphasis on humility and appeasing god on a regular basis: not completely unlike what we have here in "civilized" society. We have the luxury of a free streak running through our countries, whereas in the middle eastern nations, god is all they have. God is all they have to look forward to.
It's very difficult for me to say that Islam is not a violent religion, because then I would have to say that Christianity is not a violent religion. In both cases, I'd be wrong. In both cases we have seen extreme interpretations of both holy books, and I have no doubt that if we (the US) were a more unstable nation (more unstable than we already are -.-) then we'd be prone to just as much violence as the modern world has seen what perverted forms of Islam are capable of.
“Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.” That was quoted by George W. Bush not too long before he sent us into Iraq. You can see how close we came to being a theocratic nation based on that and many, many statements he's made.
See, that's just an interpretation of what the bible says about Armageddon. A lot of bad stuff has come about from playing loose and fast with interpretations. (KKK and Al Qaeda ). But! To be perfectly honest, all of these holy books that we have: The Qur'an, The Holy Bible, The Book of Mormon, Dianetics...so on and so forth, all indirectly/directly promote violence.
I'm just gonna cherry pick here from Leviticus (of the Old Testament) like so many people do:
20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
20:11 - And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
20:27 - A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. (Which sucks for those of us who were pretty addicted to Everquest. Wizards had the highest DPS. ><)
That's not a mistranslation. That's a desert people creating a set of rules and making it universal law. Obviously, with the exception of crazy, fundamentalist groups, we don't stone gays or wizards to death. We've learned to think things through and realize that maybe that's not the best route.
There are just some people that believe that there is no other route but the one described in their holy book, and that's where we have problems. I'm perfectly fine with someone having a religion, as long as there's some understanding that goes along with it.
People obviously have, since the last rough count of how many different forms of Christianity we have reached an astronomical 20,000. There are definitely some conflicts there. =O
And, yes, I love talking about this stuff. I'm waiting for someone to reel me in.
|
|
|
Post by Zarsthor on Oct 12, 2009 15:22:25 GMT 1
I love to discuss religion also.
You make some great points. I think what the problem with religious text though is, as one of the Muslim women in one of those video's above said, its a shame they're stuck in the past. Those books were written for a different culture almost entirely. We've changed so much that most of the points in those books have no meaning for us anymore. Its like being told you have to go caveman and drag a woman back to your place with a club. If anybody tried that in today's society (and I am aware some crazy men have tried it) they'd no doubt get a face full of mace and a prison sentence. After a certain length of time I really think that a religious text should be treated like an old scientific journal, out of date, and new theories should be explored. Those books were written in times when violence was more acceptable, and possibly needed, today we don't need it and we sure don't need books telling us to go and commit stonings. Why did we make guns? Because of the holy books withdrawn nature on today's society religions are losing the entire point. Religion is a community dedicated to social ideals of improvement in order to appease a concept of inner and outer worth to the individual and universe at large. Great respect to those religious leaders who still try to get that point across. Its dreadfully sad when other religious leaders try to take an old cultures idea and turn it into a modern day massacre. I'm unsure if they are just power hungry madmen or that delusional they really want us to go back to 800BC. They wouldn't like it as much as they think they would.
I wonder what a international religion would be like. If we took all the good points from every religion and made them into a new one. lol A mess of contradictions.
|
|
|
Post by Knightfall on Oct 13, 2009 12:13:42 GMT 1
It's very hard for me to imagine any sort of unified belief system. I couldn't fathom what could come about in a purely atheistic or Christian society either. I'm not so sure we actually need one, since both the UK and US have a lot of religious tolerance which has proved a very good thing. The problems come about when people start drawing boundaries and use religion to justify all sorts of weird things -- and thanks to the typical holy book's ambiguity, they're justified in their mind. A writer which I keep a constant eye on, Christopher Hitchens, regularly says that he has no problem with religion, just keep it out of his personal space. He's very defensive about it and very critical about religion; even going so far as to write a book called God is Not Great (great book, though). And I can agree in that sense, that religion needs to be separate and more personal. After all, most people refer to god as a "personal god" but they always try to spread him around unsolicited. Like in Texas where there's a bid to stop teachers from teaching evolution in school, which I don't agree with in the least bit. I think these religions need to be questioned and analyzed with sound logic instead of treating them as if they're intrinsically infallible. Though, it's becoming more and more common to do this, since apparently Christianity is on a slight decline and Islam is on the rise. Although people are just trading one religion for another, they're still questioning, which is a step in the right direction. Here's a couple debates that I used to watch a lot. Both are by Christopher Hitchens, and you'll probably notice that he has a very short fuse when it comes to this stuff, but he goes about debate very, very well. Also, to touch on the contradictions you mentioned!
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Oct 13, 2009 12:19:21 GMT 1
I think a unified religion would be very dull - and dangerous. That said, I am quietly hoping that everyone eventually converts to atheism like me.
I love that Opal Fruits (I refuse to call them 'Starburst') advert. "Starburst is a solid - yet juicy - LAKALIQUAAAD!!"
|
|
|
Post by Knightfall on Oct 13, 2009 12:31:00 GMT 1
lol! That would be my dream, to just roam the Scotland countryside in a kilt, carrying a bagpipe, just laughing heartily until I find some young'n to pass some wisdom off to.
And I'm the same way, I quietly wish that people would convert to atheism. But I can still see complications (if you've seen the South Park episode "Go, God, Go!" you'd know why xD). I would first wish that people get the right idea about atheism, because many, many people treat it like a religion, when it's not. It could be dangerous having various warring sects of atheism, as well.
|
|
|
Post by Zarsthor on Oct 16, 2009 2:10:25 GMT 1
"If you keep it private like joining an S & M club..." I like this Christopher Hitchen's guy. Thank you for the link Knighty I'm watching all his stuff now.
|
|
|
Post by Knightfall on Oct 17, 2009 2:40:37 GMT 1
Glad you liked it! Christopher Hitchens is the best kind of religious debater: someone who knows the bible better than most theologists out there, and he constantly calls people out on it. It's utterly fascinating to hear him talk about this stuff most of the time. I always learn something new with each debate. If I had to dock him for anything it would be his passion, at times. If you read his book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, a great many sections of it read like angry rants. He's been all over the world and has seen the negative effects of religion first-handedly, so I suppose it's hard to judge him on that account, but I shouldn't be able to sense anger in a book like that. That, and he supported the United States' invasion of Iraq...so yeah, that's the only blemish on his record that I'm quick to disagree with. If you want to see a movie that's just filled with religious debate, check out a documentary called Religulous. In it, Bill Maher travels the world and points out the hypocrisy of several major and minor religions. It's more silly than informative, but it does bring up some very interesting points. For instance, he points out that the story of Jesus might have actually been created by borrowing the story of the Egyptian god, Horus: www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htmEDIT: The website I listed above doesn't list many references. Although the knowledge it details is accurate, it's sorta hearsay knowledge. Here's an actual documentary on the subject that's very thorough: www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18973.htm
|
|
|
Post by Zarsthor on Oct 24, 2009 21:38:45 GMT 1
This guy makes some interesting points.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Oct 25, 2009 0:38:06 GMT 1
Whenever I've been asked if I can disprove God, I always say 'No but there's no sensible reason to believe he does exist - I can't disprove Superman either'. This fella does make interesting points.
|
|
|
Post by Knightfall on Oct 25, 2009 12:14:07 GMT 1
Ugh. Asking an atheist to disprove God's existence should be viewed along the same lines as trying to disprove a magic space dragon with bears for wings. Neither have any sort of physical or scientific basis in this world intrinsically, so it's not up to atheists to disprove it.
The burden of proof will always lie on the other side of the argument. For the question to be flipped back at the atheist is unprofessional and desperate. If the creationist, or whomever along those lines, has the proof and has the evidence, then that's really where it matters.
It's a widely-used trap that you should try not to fall in to, and someone likely to ask such a question will be able to talk their way around any sort of empirical data you might have. You might say evolution, then they might say, "Then why is it a theory?" or some such, and back you into a question that science cannot answer, and they will have "technically" won.
Unless you know who you're dealing with. And by "you," I don't mean anyone specifically, just you.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Oct 26, 2009 0:33:45 GMT 1
I'm not sure about this burden-of-proof is on the other guy thing. Both sides should be trying to prove their position. There is the ridiculous 'blind faith' excuse.
|
|
|
Post by Zarsthor on Oct 26, 2009 5:41:25 GMT 1
I've never had a 'does god exist' debate with anyone religous thats ended in them or myself winning because normally I just get really annoyed with them and they get really annoyed with me and we call a truce. It really bugs me when you give them a sensible answer and they think they can canundrum you with 'but why does it say in the bible...' It says in the bible because some guys were drinking one night and thought 'lets write a book about how people should live.' and they did and some people believed in it so strongly it became a religon where people tried to live by these rules made up by some drunk guys one night in the desert. Hundreds of years later people started taking it all way to seriously and decided obviously pixies exist. I mean seriosuly guys theres stories about 200 feet monsters that ate cities and were deafted by knights from hundreds of years ago. Can I disprove those monsters existed? What does it matter anyway they suire as hell don't exist now. Would be awesome if they did.
I have no diea what my point was with this entire post. I'm still trying to calm down from ASDA.
|
|
|
Post by Knightfall on Oct 26, 2009 8:41:04 GMT 1
I'm not sure about this burden-of-proof is on the other guy thing. Both sides should be trying to prove their position. There is the ridiculous 'blind faith' excuse. Very good point. I was only pointing out (and I hardly remembered that I did, since I was super tired when I wrote it) that technically (super technically) the challenge to disprove god or the "How do you know he doesn't exist?" question, should never, ever be on the atheist's shoulders. Obviously, it doesn't always happen that way, I was only speaking from the official debate guidelines. If I walk up to you and say there's a magical space dragon with bears for wings out there, it shouldn't be on you to disprove it; it should be on me to prove its existence. Which I can't, unfortunately. And there's another thing, the "blind faith" you brought up. I find that faith these days is an excuse for absolute ignorance. I don't think you should ever chalk anything up to faith, when it comes to religion. Faith is an excuse to stay where you are and just be, and it's a common practice taught far too often by these Abrahamic religions. There should always be a drive to learn more. Buddhists believe that there are 8,000 (roughly) paths to enlightenment, and many modern day religions are just different paths. I like that. It's non-intrusive and it encourages one to seek what thou wilt. As for how these holy books were created, I'd never go so far as to think that a few middle eastern men got drunk and just cranked these things out. These holy books are reflective of the times, but some parts of them are still applicable to modern culture--one just has to look very hard and understand what they're reading. After all, I took a lot of meaning from Star Wars: Shatterpoint, but I didn't go out and start looking for separatists to slaughter. That's the difference: if Star Wars was written during the copper age, there would be two billion Jedi walking around today. And if ever someone throws scripture at you again, the solution is as simple as cracking open the bible, doing a little research, and throwing it right back at them.
|
|