Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Baffler]

This is the passage that people generally cite when calling Islam inherently violent. Taken from this.

Spoiler: Surat Al-Baqarah (2:190-193) (click to show/hide)

Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. Kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

One translation of the above refers to this passage, so I'll include it.

Spoiler: Surat At-Tawbah (9:36) (click to show/hide)

Indeed, the number of months with Allah is twelve [lunar] months in the register of Allah [from] the day He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the correct religion, so do not wrong yourselves during them. And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively. And know that Allah is with the righteous [who fear Him].

It's late and I don't have any meaningful commentary to contribute except that they both give the overwhelming impression that something was lost in translation, but there they are at any rate.

[UXLZ]

Truthfully told, the existence of religion in and of itself is a catalyst for violence. That isn't to say it would not happen otherwise, as often it is merely used as a bad justification for actions people would likely commit otherwise, or that it is the fault of the religious people themselves (atheists and so forth can be just as bad in the 'holy crusade' mindset.)

[scrdest]

Truthfully told, the existence of religion in and of itself is a catalyst for violence. That isn't to say it would not happen otherwise, as often it is merely used as a bad justification for actions people would likely commit otherwise, or that it is the fault of the religious people themselves (atheists and so forth can be just as bad in the 'holy crusade' mindset.)

To paraphrase a certain ancient satirist, it may be of interest to those studying the chemistry of religions that at the point of contact of two religions a large amount of lead is precipitated.

[Calidovi]

Truthfully told, the existence of religion in and of itself is a catalyst for violence. That isn't to say it would not happen otherwise, as often it is merely used as a bad justification for actions people would likely commit otherwise, or that it is the fault of the religious people themselves (atheists and so forth can be just as bad in the 'holy crusade' mindset.)

If you have the word of God behind you, who's to judge your holy intentions.

[TD1]

'Holy' is another way of saying arrogant.

[Baffler]

'Holy' is another way of saying arrogant.

And 'atheist' is another way of saying self-righteous, but that isn't a very constructive thing to say is it?

[Rolan7]

"Atheist" means not knowing a thing (the existence of God).  It's inherently humble, though I agree some anti-theists get pretty pushy.
"Holy" means...  I honestly don't know actually.  Depends on the religion I guess.

[ChairmanPoo]

"Atheist" means not knowing a thing (the existence of God)

No it doesn't. It means not being a theist aka, being an unbeliever. Nowadays it's mostly used to refer to people who don't follow any religious creed. Back in the day it could be used to refer to people who did not conform to the speaker's religious creed (eg: ancient Christians got called "atheists" for not taking part in the Roman Imperial Cult)

[Rolan7]

I think that's what I meant?
An atheist is a non-theist.  An atheist isn't convinced there is a God.  People are atheist by default, just by not being sure.
I didn't mean to imply that Atheists were wrong by definition, that'd be silly.

Whereas anti-theists are convinced that there isn't a God, which is a positive claim.  Even Dawkins isn't technically an anti-theist, but he does clarify that he considers the existence of gods extraordinarily unlikely.  Just theoretically possible, like brain-in-jar scenarios.

I think strict anti-theism is fundamentally wrong, which I think makes me an agnostic atheist.  I'm with Dawkins on the odds of there actually being a deity, though.  Particularly any of the conceptions of god/gods humanity is aware of.

[Adragis]

"Holy" means...  I honestly don't know actually.  Depends on the religion I guess.

Isn't 'holy' generally a synonym for 'sanctified'? So, 'set apart'?

[MonkeyHead]

I think that's what I meant?
An atheist is a non-theist.  An atheist isn't convinced there is a God.  People are atheist by default, just by not being sure.
I didn't mean to imply that Atheists were wrong by definition, that'd be silly.

Whereas anti-theists are convinced that there isn't a God, which is a positive claim.  Even Dawkins isn't technically an anti-theist, but he does clarify that he considers the existence of gods extraordinarily unlikely.  Just theoretically possible, like brain-in-jar scenarios.

I think strict anti-theism is fundamentally wrong, which I think makes me an agnostic atheist.  I'm with Dawkins on the odds of there actually being a deity, though.  Particularly any of the conceptions of god/gods humanity is aware of.

This is a fact oft misunderstood by many theists, and needs highlighting.

[wierd]

I think the term you were looking for is "agnostic".

Much like atheist means "Not a theist", agnostic means "not knowing."  It comes from the word gnosis, meaning knowledge.

The default condition is not having knowledge. (and through that absence of knowledge, not having any belief in any particular god)   

Much like the distinction you are making, (hard vs soft atheism), there is a distinction between agnostics as well.  Hard agnostics, like myself, assert from a purely logical point of view that knowledge of a supernatural god is impossible, and thus anyone stating that they know such knowledge is spreading falsehoods. This includes affirmative statements against the existence of such entities.  Rather than take such a positive position on the debate, the hard agnostic states that the question is worthless to even bother with, and just ignores it as irrelevant.  The soft agnostic however, simply has never encountered any information at all about any particular god, and thus by default has no knowledge. (For instance, the absence of knowledge I have about any belief systems that extra-terrestrials might have. I have never met an ET, so I have no clue whatsoever about what ET believes.) Soft agnostics have the potential to become either theists or atheists, depending on circumstances. (ET could come down from the sky and share the great virtues of the Juffo-Whup, and win them over for instance.) Hard agnostics do not, having consciously chosen to ignore the issue completely, due to its irrationality.

It is my argument, as a hard agnostic, that hard atheists and devout theists are both "equally wrong" in their assertions of knowing something about a divinity.

[TD1]

'Holy' is another way of saying arrogant.

And 'atheist' is another way of saying self-righteous, but that isn't a very constructive thing to say is it?

I meant the 'holy' used in the context Laptism gave.

And you think atheists are self righteous? Meh, I suppose a few are. I like to think I'm not, but I'd be the last to know

[wierd]

Not all atheists are self-righteous.

Not everyone who is "holy" is also arrogant.

Making such an obviously false assertion is either indication of delusionment, or of hypocrisy, given the subject matter.

"Holy" means that you hold a higher, "spiritualist" ideal.  It does not need to relate to gods or other divine beings. Running a soup kitchen simply to help the people that cannot afford food, and thus help society as a whole, as a higher ideal, can be considered a "holy" calling for instance.  Would you say the honestly good intending soup kitchen operator is arrogant?

[TD1]

As I was saying, I was using the holy used in this context:

If you have the word of God behind you, who's to judge your holy intentions.

It is basically saying, "God is behind me, I am right, you're not, you can't judge me because I'm working for God."