samcdkey on Islam

as I said nobody disbutes that man kills man, even when it's communism, however religion causes 99.9% of the deaths, due to the evil inspired words in all it's books.
http://www.religiongonebad.com/sample.php
"Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven. What a weapon! Religious faith deserves a chapter to itself in the annals of war technology, on an even footing with the longbow, the warhorse, the tank and the hydrogen bomb." - Richard Dawkins, ("Blind faith can justify anything")
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/harm.html

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.cafepress.com/religionkills
there is an awful lot of people out there who believe religion kills.
lifespans tend to decrease as religiosity rises.
http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/003525.html

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://allphilosophy.com/post/show/14342

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

An "awful lot of people" also believe in God.

Sounds like the atheists are right up there in fear mongering alongwith the right wing extremists.

I do believe this was the same technique used by Stalin for the formation of the gulags.

False.

Studies have shown that suicide rates tend to increase with atheism.

Religiosity and suicide rates:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/155/5/413

http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309083214/html/201.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No I'm removing popular misconceptions about Islam.

People tend to think that Islam and Christianity are identical in their structure; they are not.

http://www.islamia.com/what_is_islam.htm

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

Another source:

If you want the Catholic position on terrorism, ask the Vatican. If you want the Southern Baptist position, refer to the Executive Committee and the resolutions of the annual convention. There may be dissent, as in all faiths. But these offices have the authority to speak on behalf of their religion.

Islam has no organized church to speak with such authority. As the world confronts terrorism, no single Muslim or Islamic organization can tell us definitively what Islam says on the subject.

There is a time-honored precedent for this diversity of religious authorities in Islam. Soon after Muhammad's death, faced with the fallibility of human efforts to interpret revelation, leading Muslim scholars agreed to disagree. Not all approaches were tolerated, but a form of pluralism became institutionalized in the 9th century through the four schools of Islamic law, which most seminaries in the Islamic world have recognized and taught alongside one another for centuries. In the 1950s, the rector of al-Azhar even agreed to recognize and teach Shi'ism -- the sect of Islam that predominates in Iran -- as a fifth legal school.

Disagreement and debate among Muslim scholars is thus expected and accepted, even as the boundaries of toleration have on occasion been enforced with expulsion or death.

The profusion of religious authorities outside of the seminaries has generated a large body of liberal Islamic thought, as well as radicalism, including Islamic arguments for democracy, human rights, gender equality and the like. As a result, the diversity of Muslim opinion has widened considerably over the past century, making it even harder to identify a single authoritative position as representing "the" Islamic take on virtually any contemporary issue.

Who speaks for Islam? More and more Muslims do. As they compete with one another for the support of their fellow believers, there is debate even over the criteria by which they ought to be measured: scholarly insight, personal piety, political efficacy or other grounds.

http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/whospeaks.htm

Any Muslim is free to disagree with me on any point of religion as long as he can find scholarly documents to back up his claim (or quote a verse of the Quran). Just like in science (for example) we can argue over the "evidence" and either we come to a consensus or agree to disagree. That is the beauty of it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That is what ultimately happened between the Imam and I.The problem today is with poor education in Islamic theology and a lack of distinguished scholars to take on the chore of examining the Quran and Sharia in the context of contemporary society.


Did you miss this?

Wahabism is not one of these schools of thought (aka Madhab) and did not gain acceptability in the Muslim world until the Sauds came into oil money and began propagating their ideology through madrassas. It is still not considered acceptable by mainstream Muslims.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah sorry I thought you missed the fact that it should follow one or more of the four Madhabs.

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

Did you at least realise that the Imam could not compel me to follow his beliefs?

BTW I checked out his profile- I don't think he was a real Imam. And his beliefs contradicted those of mainstream Islam.

 

Ha ha, yeah i saw his profile when he was posting. I guess at this point anything else i may say would come off as anti-Islam\anti-religion.

I consider myself Christian but of course many Christian's would not agree...oh well.

 

Oh look, more clinging to strawman arguments.

 

It was a mirrored image of YOUR logic, but it obviously went right over your head.

 

They have been, that is evident through history. As well, it is only your assertion violence has "always" been present in humans.

Strawman argument, again. You confuse violence with self-preservations and survival.

Uh, it is you who ignores the evidence and clings to strawman arguments in vain attempts to defend religion. Indoctrination and brainwashing spews forth your propaganda and strawmam arguments.

 

You've been skipping on the almonds again.

Either that or you have a selective memory.

In any case, this is a waste of time.

And I still don't see what mother's milk has to do with heroines.

 

Yes lets just discard any variance, makes the data so much neater.

 

And perhaps you've been fasting too much, you're over-delirious these days.

Yes, it is a waste of time when you continually revert back to your tired strawman arguments. No matter what evidence is brought before you, it's is promptly ignored in favor of religion.

Humans bad - religion good.

You're just like an evangelist, repeating the same mantras over and over.

I never said heroines, I said heroine. Remove the veil from your eyes.

 

I never said humans are bad, but ignoring the fact that they have aggressive tendencies which may have been of evolutionary benefit (competition, dominance, sexual selection) and which may fall anywhere on a continuum, is not rational.

And please, do tell me what difference a singular form of heroine makes to the meaning:

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/heroine

That's priceless, coming from you.

 

Do you mean the skewed, miniscule, selective, one-off data you provide?

 

A period from 1917 to 1959 in the USSR when all the government in power was not religious?

The period of Mao who was not religious?

The reign of Pol Pot who was not religious?

I'm glad you consider them one off. You obviously have a ton of evidence saying otherwise, some kind beneficient rulers who were not theists? You do believe in objective analysis of evidence, don't you?

Did I say that atheists were worse or religious were better?

All men who achieve power do so because they have the ambition and hunger for it.

Some have it more than others and become dictators and will do anything to retain their power.

Based on the evidence, it makes NO difference whether they use God or gulags to achieve their aim.

 

Darn I got it.

You meant heroin (we call it smack).

And yep if the mom's taking it, it sure does!

 

Some people just can't be reasonable. Like you sam. I like you. I think you have the right info to say the stuff you do.

 

I have a feeling that people are fooling themselves all over again.

You know, get rid of religion and secularism will be a natural consequence.

Thats like erasing the whole history of man and pretending he's something he's not.

Secularism can only come through tolerance. Intolerance breeds conflict, nothing more.
And its sad that those who want it most are the biggest blockades to it.

 

Yes. Iagree. People with closed minds are the cause of most trouble. They should look at themselves and stop being a**holes to other people.

 

And its scary too.

Stalin was a progressive, so was Hitler; they wanted to get rid of those who were obstacles to a perfect society, nomads, homosexuals, and anti-socials in the case of Hitler and the kulaks in the case of Stalin. They believed mass extermination of the superfluous was the only way to achieve perfection in society. "Enlightened" people like George Bernard Shaw admired them, endorsed their beliefs. Both Germany and USSR were progressive regimes and people living there swallowed the propoganda fed to them.

People believe anything, ignore all evidence to the contrary, when they are convinced of their righteousness.

Downright scary.

 

Amen. I totally agree.