Has Religion Done More Good Than Bad?

[Tryhard]

Well yeah, but you specifically said active monotheism. Wouldn't you consider it more on the end of active/non-active then distinguishing between Abrahamic religions and not? If anything, I could consider myself a Deist at most, yet I would never considered it "debunked" to believe in an active god in the universe. I simply don't believe it to be true.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Tryhard

[blah the Prussian]

There isn't a Hindu ISIS because there's only one Hindu country, India. Not a big enough sample size. Buddhism, though, does have blood on its hands from Myanmar. In any case, it's not useful to say a religion is "prone to violence" as if this were a math equation when religious violence is Farley consistently cause don't by factors well beyond the religion itself.

[Shoblongoo]

On 1/30/2018 at 10:10 AM, Tryhard said:

why would polytheism be any more agreeable?

...Well polytheism presumably sidesteps the question of why are there natural evils if god is all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing? 

Not that there's any greater factual basis for considering it anything more than superstition and folklore, but that's one less inconsistency between the belief system and the observable state of the world that needs to be explained away.

Alternatively, a monotheistic god exists, but the Abrahamic faiths got it all wrong. The One God is all-powerful and all-knowing,  but he is not omnibenevolent. He is in fact a malevolent deity; one who inflicts sickness and cataclysm and creates mortal beings inclined towards violence and depravity not as some sort of spiritual test or as a way to encourage us to grow and overcome adversity. But because it amuses him--God hates us all.    

Of course the whole point of spirituality is to make people feel better and believe that no matter how shit life gets--if they live the right way--their existence serves a higher purpose. Their earthly struggles are not for naught. There's something bigger than them out there that loves them and wants them to be happy.

...so understandably, that's not a system of belief that's going to catch on anytime soon. 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Moblin Major General]

2 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Alternatively, a monotheistic god exists, but the Abrahamic faiths got it all wrong. The One God is all-powerful and all-knowing,  but he is not omnibenevolent. He is in fact a malevolent deity; one who inflicts sickness and cataclysm and creates mortal beings inclined towards depravity not as some sort of spiritual test or as a way to encourage us to grow and overcome and adversity. But because it amuses him--God hates us all.

So, in other words, Megami Tensei? Also, in a way, your thing about worshipping an openly malevolent deity is somewhat false, else Satanism would not exist at all, instead of being fringe. Granted, even Satanists would have to admit that he isn't all powerful or all knowing, unlike SMT God.

[Shoblongoo]

Just now, blah the Prussian said:

There isn't a Hindu ISIS because there's only one Hindu country, India. Not a big enough sample size. Buddhism, though, does have blood on its hands from Myanmar. In any case, it's not useful to say a religion is "prone to violence" as if this were a math equation when religious violence is Farley consistently cause don't by factors well beyond the religion itself.

To elaborate; Its not so much that any particular religion is prone to violence as religiosity is prone to violence. 

That is to say, the more stringently a person takes it as an article of faith divorced from exercise of reason that there is one true-and-correct divinely inspired way to live; all others are false. And the more stringently a person believes all which is said and done as an act of devotion to The Faith is beyond moral reproach; human understanding cannot second-guess divine revelation.

The more easily a person can be led into atrocity.

It is not a propensity to violence intrinsic to Islam which today causes the Islamic World to be the hotbead of terrorism that it is, but rather, the fact that the Islamic World has retained a higher degree of religiosity in the modern age, whereas the areas of the world controlled by other major religions have largely secularized.

In every single era of human history where Europe and India and China exercised comparable levels of religiosity in the formation of law and public policy and the cultural attitudes of its people, they were prone to equally prevalent and atrocious outbreaks of religious violence. 

And for much of our history (i.e. the Pre Al-Gazali era of Islamic Scholarship, before the burning of the Library of Baghdad), the Islamic World was significantly ahead of Europe in that respect.  

[Kalken]

I was just listing the Abrahamic ones as an example. Since they really don't hold up when one acknowledges findings in fields like biology and archaeology (see the lack of evidence that the Exodus happened).

5 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

There isn't a Hindu ISIS because there's only one Hindu country, India. Not a big enough sample size.

Hindus hardly only live in India. With that acknowledged, Hindus aren't as represented in terrorism as Muslims and Christians.

10 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Buddhism, though, does have blood on its hands from Myanmar.

I suggest you show me passage  in the Pali canon permitting organized killings against non-believers. And evidence the Buddha was a pedophile warlord.

15 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

In any case, it's not useful to say a religion is "prone to violence" as if this were a math equation when religious violence is Farley consistently cause don't by factors well beyond the religion itself.

And when did the Romans have a Thirty Years' War?

5 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

To elaborate; Its not so much that any particular religion is prone to violence as religiosity is prone to violence.

No. The Greeks and Romans were hardly secular. And yet, they did not produce Jihads or engage in Thirty Year Wars that depopulate much of a chunk of a continent.

10 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

That is to say, the more stringently a person takes it as an article of faith divorced from exercise of reason that there is one true-and-correct divinely inspired way to live; all others are false. And the more stringently a person believes all which is said and done as an act of devotion to The Faith is beyond moral reproach; human understanding cannot second-guess divine revelation.

The more easily a person can be led into atrocity.

In other words, they actually accept what the text says.

12 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

It is not a propensity to violence intrinsic to Islam which today causes the Islamic World to be the hotbead of terrorism that it is, but rather, the fact that the Islamic World has retained a higher degree of religiosity in the modern age, whereas the areas of the world controlled by other major religions have largely secularized.
 

And Islam is far more at odds with the world post-Scientific and Industrial Revolutions than say, Deism.

14 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

.In every single era of human history where Europe and India and China exercised comparable levels of religiosity in the formation of law and public policy and the cultural attitudes of its people, they were prone to equally prevalent and atrocious outbreaks of religious violence.

Where's the Hindu Crusades and Buddhist Thirty Years' War? Or the Hindu Jizya?

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, Hylian Air Force said:

So, in other words, Megami Tensei? Also, in a way, your thing about worshipping an openly malevolent deity is somewhat false, else Satanism would not exist at all, instead of being fringe. Granted, even Satanists would have to admit that he isn't all powerful or all knowing, unlike SMT God.

...I feel like you're misunderstanding what Satanism... (I'm generally adverse to all forms of organized religion, but if there's one that makes sense to me, it's Satanism)

Satanism is not the worship of "The Devil" as a literal, malefic entity. Satanism is a humanistic religion that holds all traditional religious doctrines on sin, abstinence, punishment of sin and reward of piety are false--the highest purpose to which a human being can aspire in life is hedonic pleasure. Because this is the highest purpose to which humans can aspire as the ultimate fulfillment of the human condition, the bans on recreational sex and intoxication and gluttony imposed by traditional religious concepts of what is considered pleasing or displeasing to God represent an intolerable repression of the human condition that must be rebelled against.

..And that is the crux of "Satan's" role in the religion. It is the idea Satan represents--rebellion against God.

God represents abstinence. Satan represents indulgence. 
God represents judgement. Satan represents acceptance.
God represents self-righteous denial. Satan represents plain truth.        

To the extent Satanists believe in Satan at all, they do not identify him as a malevolent creature who hates us or wants us to suffer. They identify him as the one being who loved humans enough to give them the gift of free-will (i.e. the apple of Eden),  and showed them a better way to live than as ignorant naked mind-slaves to a tyrant god.

______

Some choice quotes from The Satanic Bible to illustrate the faith: 

“We don't worship Satan, we worship ourselves using the metaphorical representation of the qualities of Satan. Satan is the name used by Judeo-Christians for that force of individuality and pride within us. But the force itself has been called by many names.We embrace Christian myths of Satan and Lucifer, along with Satanic renderings in Greek, Roman, Islamic, Sumerian, Syrian, Phrygian, Egyptian, Chinese or Hindu mythologies, to name but a few. We are not limited to one deity, but encompass all the expressions of the accuser or the one who advocates free thought and rational alternatives by whatever name he is called in a particular time and land." 

“All religions of a spiritual nature are inventions of man. He has created an entire system of gods with nothing more than his carnal brain. Just because he has an ego and cannot accept it, he has had to externalize it into some great spiritual device which he calls "God." God can do all the things man is forbidden to do- such as kill people, preform miracles to gratify his will, control without any apparent responsibility, etc. If man needs such a god and recognizes that god, then his is worshiping an entity that a human being invented. Therefore, HE IS WORSHIPING BY PROXY THE MAN THAT INVENTED GOD. Is it not more sensible to worship a god that he, himself, has created, in accordance with his own emotional needs- one that best represents the very carnal and physical being that has the idea-power to invent a god in the first place?” 

“Satanists are encouraged to indulge in the seven deadly sins, as they need hurt no one; they were only invented by the Christian Church to insure guilt on the part of its followers. The Christian Church knows that it is impossible for anyone to avoid committing these sins, as they are all things which we, being human, most naturally do."

“The Satanist knows that praying does absolutely no good- in fact, it actually lessens the chance of success, for the devoutly religious too often sit back complacently and pray for a situation which, if they were to do something about it on their own, could be accomplished much quicker!” 

“When a Satanist commits a wrong, he realizes that is it natural to make a mistake―and if he is truly sorry about what he has done, he will learn from it and take care not to do the same thing again. If he is not honestly sorry about what he has done, and knows he will do the same thing over and over, he has no business confessing and asking forgiveness in the first place.” 

“Satanism condones any type of sexual activity which properly satisfies your individual desires- be it heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or even asexual, if you choose. Satanism also sanctions any fetish or deviation which will enhance your sex-life, so long as it involves no one who does not wish to be involved.” 

_____

...its actually a fascinating religion with a lot of really good ideas. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Tryhard]

If you're talking about LaVeyan Satanism, then yeah, they wouldn't revere Satan as they are more a secular materialistic view of religion where Satan is purely symbolic. It's also worth noting that it encourages social Darwinism and anti-egalitarianism, and LaVey also supported eugenics, so let's not go overboard in praising it.

But there are Satanists that actually worship Satan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_Satanism

Edited January 30, 2018 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

27 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

If you're talking about LaVeyan Satanism

...yeah thats the one. Pretty sure that's the mainstream form of modern Satanism.

To the extent Thiestic Satanism is still a thing, its like the Westboro Baptist Church of Satanism. Its the lunatic fringe.  

And it runs counter to one of the central tenants of mainstream LaVeyan Satanism; i.e. All external supernatural entities are the product of the carnal brain, and worshiping them is pointless.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Lord Raven]

55 minutes ago, Kalken said:

I suggest you show me passage  in the Pali canon permitting organized killings against non-believers. And evidence the Buddha was a pedophile warlord.

Then why are the buddhists in Myanmar performing a genocide on the Rohingya Muslims if it's not in their holy book? Religion is a very simplistic cause to blame things on, but there are always other forces at play when it comes to ideologically motivated violence that are beyond something as simple as listening to their holy book.

The rest of your points are generally not too relevant to the subject at hand.. The rise in terrorist activity is moreso linked to American foreign policy in the middle east than religion. As it stands Muslims are the #1 victim of terror from middle eastern groups. If these were really in the name of Islam and supposedly justified, then there's no reason for them to constantly kill their own.

[Tryhard]

15 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...yeah thats the one. Pretty sure that's the mainstream form of modern Satanism.

To the extent Thiestic Satanism is still a thing, its like the Westboro Baptist Church of Satanism. Its the lunatic fringe.  

And it runs counter to one of the central tenants of mainstream LaVeyan Satanism; i.e. All external supernatural entities are the product of the carnal brain, and worshiping them is pointless.

Mainly because they're diametrically opposed, and they don't attempt to be aligned. They aren't from the same branch,  and groups like the ONA described LaVeyan Satanism as "weak, deluded and American form of 'sham-Satanic groups, the poseurs'."

But like I said, LaVeyan may have put some nice sounding things in his book, but he advocated for social Darwinism, anti-equality and eugenics to breed a master race of Satanists. As below:

LaVey supported eugenics and expected it to become a necessity in future, when it would be used to breed an elite who reflected LaVey's "Satanic" principles. In his view, this elite would be "superior people" who displayed the "Satanic" qualities of creativity and nonconformity. He regarded these traits as capable of hereditary transmission, and made the claim that "Satanists are born, not made". He believed that the elite should be siphoned off from the rest of the human "herd", with the latter being forced into ghettoes, ideally "space ghettoes" located on other planets. The anthropologist Jean La Fontaine highlighted an article that appeared in a LaVeyan magazine, The Black Flame, in which one writer described "a true Satanic society" as one in which the population consists of "free-spirited, well-armed, fully-conscious, self-disciplined individuals, who will neither need nor tolerate any external entity 'protecting' them or telling them what they can and cannot do." This rebellious approach conflicts with LaVey's firm beliefs in observing the rule of law. Although personally neither a fascist nor Neo-Nazi, LaVey was on good terms with various Neo-Nazi and other right-wing groups operating in the United States.

 

It seems a lot less appealing when you see his background.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

15 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

As it stands Muslims are the #1 victim of terror from middle eastern groups. If these were really in the name of Islam and supposedly justified, then there's no reason for them to constantly kill their own.

Very True.

15 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

The rise in terrorist activity is moreso linked to American foreign policy in the middle east than religion. 

...This I'd disagree with. You look at things like the Pakistan/India Conflict or the atrocities of Boko Haram and Africa, and it becomes readily apparent that the problem of terrorism as a byproduct of fundamentalist Islam in the modern world is more expansive in cause and scope than American foreign policy in the middle east.

I would trace it all the way back to Al-Gazali and the beginnings of Wahhabism. Which arose as a response to the Crusades in the Western fringes of Islamic territory and the Mongol invasions in the East--they were being butchered by crusaders in Acre and Jerusalem and Antioch at around the same time the forces of Ghengis Khan were sweeping in through Iraq and burning the great library of Baghdad.

There was an iretrievable loss of scientific and philosophical works in this period.

There was also a widespread sense among the people that this was punishment from God for their civilization becoming too pluralistic and secular and focusing too much on attaining worldly knowledge and goods; not enough on piety and prayer. 

That was the beginning of the Middle East's religious backslide into what it is today. 

 

1 hour ago, Kalken said:

Islam is far more at odds with the world post-Scientific and Industrial Revolutions than say, Deism.

 

     ...except that in the pre Al-Gazali era, Islamic lands led the world in science and scholarship. They built the first public hospitals. They advanced our knowledge of astronomy and mathematics while the Catholic Church was burning manuscripts and flogging heretics. So no--I don't believe that to be true.

Modern Islam finds itself in an historic rut, but the core tenants of its faith are not anathema to science and industry. At least not moreso than any other religion. 

It just so happens that the historic period of Islam's backslide from a previously heightened state of pluralism and secularization coincided with the age of industrialization and the modern era.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[blah the Prussian]

2 hours ago, Kalken said:

Hindus hardly only live in India. With that acknowledged, Hindus aren't as represented in terrorism as Muslims and Christians.

3 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

They aren't as represented in terrorism against the Western world, but that hardly means that they aren't represented in terrorism. The assassins of Mohandas Gandhi, for example, were Hindu extremists angered by the creation of Pakistan, and the Hindutva movement continues to perpetrate violence against Muslims in India and is quasi-Fascist. Again, this isn't against the West because they stopped having issues with the West after the end of the Raj, but it is there. As to Hindu wars of religion, my god, pick a number. The Mughal-Maratha Wars come to mind, but India's history has been rife with conflict between Hindus and Muslims and the Hindus have been hardly innocent in this. Of course, Hinduism was often not the root cause of this, but, as I'll get to, neither was Christianity or Islam for their religion's wars.

2 hours ago, Kalken said:

I suggest you show me passage  in the Pali canon permitting organized killings against non-believers. And evidence the Buddha was a pedophile warlord.

3 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

Virtually nothing in the Quran is reliable as a source on Mohammed. You have to remember that everything that he did was passed down orally for two generations before the first Muslim historians wrote them down. Regardless, it's hard to describe Mohammed as a "warlord" at least initially. I can guarantee you, however, that the Arabs still would have invaded the Byzantine East and Sassanid Persia, because both had just finished fighting a long and devastating war with each other. The Arabs were a raiding people, and saw weakness; that had much, much more to do with the early expansion of the Caliphate than did Islam. It's also worth noting that after the Arabs conquered the Byzantine East and the Sassanids their borders coalesced mostly around what is now the Islamic world. They launched raids against their neighbors from France to China, but ultimately didn't commit to expansion in any direction except towards Constantinople. If they were a bunch of Jihadi zealots they wouldn't have stopped; instead they were people who expanded in the face of weakness and stopped when they found strength, much like any other Empire.

(sidenote about Jizya- there was a tax that non Muslims had to pay, but on the other hand Muslims also had to pay a special tax into state public services; non-Muslims didn't have to contribute to this, so it evened out)

3 hours ago, Kalken said:

And when did the Romans have a Thirty Years' War?

3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

To say the Thirty Years War was caused by religion is the lazy explanation designed to prove a political point but it ignores what was really going on. The Protestant Reformation came at a time when the House of Hapsburg was consolidating their control over the Holy Roman Empire; Protestantism found acceptance among sovereigns who were opposed to the interests of Rome and Vienna. So, as the Northern German princes began to form the Protestant League they did so not because they were zealots who wanted to force their beliefs on others but because Protestantism was an excellent way to identify yourself as an enemy of the Empire's centralization. For the Emperor to enforce Catholicism, meanwhile, was an excellent tool to exert Imperial dominance, as happened when Rudolf II's edict allowing the Czechs freedom to practice Protestantism was revoked. Thus the Thirty Years War was less a religious war and more a war about the centralization of the Holy Roman Empire. For further evidence: Catholic France sided with the Protestants, because France didn't want a centralized HRE. This is true of many conflicts ostensibly about religion; there are almost always deeper elements at work.

Overall a mistake that a lot of people make when thinking about history is adopting the idea that people in the past were idiots. This was not the case. People in the past weren't a bunch of fanatical lunatics frothing at the mouth to burn the infidels; they were normal people with earthly concerns for whom religion was just a part of life, and often a convenient political tool.

[Shoblongoo]

2 hours ago, Tryhard said:

 

LaVey supported eugenics and expected it to become a necessity in future, when it would be used to breed an elite who reflected LaVey's "Satanic" principles. In his view, this elite would be "superior people" who displayed the "Satanic" qualities of creativity and nonconformity. He regarded these traits as capable of hereditary transmission, and made the claim that "Satanists are born, not made". He believed that the elite should be siphoned off from the rest of the human "herd", with the latter being forced into ghettoes, ideally "space ghettoes" located on other planets. The anthropologist Jean La Fontaine highlighted an article that appeared in a LaVeyan magazine, The Black Flame, in which one writer described "a true Satanic society" as one in which the population consists of "free-spirited, well-armed, fully-conscious, self-disciplined individuals, who will neither need nor tolerate any external entity 'protecting' them or telling them what they can and cannot do." This rebellious approach conflicts with LaVey's firm beliefs in observing the rule of law. Although personally neither a fascist nor Neo-Nazi, LaVey was on good terms with various Neo-Nazi and other right-wing groups operating in the United States.

 

 

...that's appalling and obviously not in alignment with my own belief system.

But the stuff I quoted earlier makes insanely good sense to me. 

[eclipse]

9 hours ago, Kalken said:

Every major religion that preaches an active monotheism has been more or less debunked. That rules out the Abrahamic religions (which goes in line with how the strongest denials of modern scientific findings come from them). They are also highly represented in violence (there isn't a Hindu ISIS).

We can safely rule out the notion that a magical man in the sky made humans with humans being special for it.

Fine, you don't like religion.

However, you're in Serious Discussion.  If you can't respect those that do, this isn't the subforum for you.  "Magical man in the sky" is really disrespectful.

EDIT: Regarding Satanism - that's damn interesting.  But like any other -ism, I think there's several different flavors.

Edited January 31, 2018 by eclipse

[Tryhard]

4 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

...that's appalling and obviously not in alignment with my own belief system.

But the stuff I quoted earlier makes insanely good sense to me. 

That sounds like what religious people say ;)

I think it's pretty hypocritical on the part of trying to create a humanistic "religion" which was mostly just anti-Christianity - the sort of stuff about maximising desires and power just makes me roll my eyes personally.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Tryhard

[eclipse]

12 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

That sounds like what religious people say ;)

I think it's pretty hypocritical on the part of trying to create a humanistic "religion" which was mostly just anti-Christianity - the sort of stuff about maximising desires and power just makes me roll my eyes personally.

If they think Christianity is that bad, eh.  They're free to believe what they want, even if I think it's petty.

[Kalken]

9 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Then why are the buddhists in Myanmar performing a genocide on the Rohingya Muslims if it's not in their holy book?

 

Like how ISIS (who are devout Muslims) enslave for sex and massacre Yazidis and Assyrians (who are heretical or non-believers). Except one is far less at odds with their traditions than the other.

9 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Religion is a very simplistic cause to blame things on, but there are always other forces at play when it comes to ideologically motivated violence that are beyond something as simple as listening to their holy book.

You can say that about Nazism and Commuism. Ideologies are not interchangable in their impact on the world. And there are other issues with Islam besides its high representation in holy violence (see its track record when it comes to modern science).

9 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

The rise in terrorist activity is moreso linked to American foreign policy in the middle east than religion.

Islamic Apologism. Other regions have been invaded or interfered with by Westerners without producing the hostility and underwhelming backwardness of the Islamic World (see the Islamic World's laughable track record when it comes to modern science). Even in the Islamic World you hardly see Jews engage in terrorism to the same level as Muslims.

9 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

The rest of your points are generally not too relevant to the subject at hand.. The rise in terrorist activity is moreso linked to American foreign policy in the middle east than religion. As it stands Muslims are the #1 victim of terror from middle eastern groups. If these were really in the name of Islam and supposedly justified, then there's no reason for them to constantly kill their own.

What about it? Islam draws in the violent and hostile who lash out on their neighbors. Islam has a history with warring on heretics and/or unbelievers.

 

8 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

...except that in the pre Al-Gazali era, Islamic lands led the world in science and scholarship. They built the first public hospitals. They advanced our knowledge of astronomy and mathematics while the Catholic Church was burning manuscripts and flogging heretics. So no--I don't believe that to be true.

Demonstrate the accomplishments that weren't derived from Europeans (Greeks), Chinese, or civilizations that were significant before Islam (see Persia, or Egypt). And performed by actual Muslims (read: Not Christians, Jews, or heretics). Richard Dawkins took the piss out of this card when it came to Christians.

8 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Modern Islam finds itself in an historic rut, but the core tenants of its faith are not anathema to science and industry. At least not moreso than any other religion.

Considering little of the Quran (and other Abrahamic texts) holds when looked at with modern science, not really. Unless you're telling there was a global flood that happened when Anatomically Modern Humans were a thing.

8 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

It just so happens that the historic period of Islam's backslide from a previously heightened state of pluralism and secularization coincided with the age of industrialization and the modern era.

Islam has little to offer for actual science when you stop groupin in Non-Islamic source. And that raises the question of the Islamic World's failure to achieve such.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Kalken

[Lord Raven]

31 minutes ago, Kalken said:

Like how ISIS (who are devout Muslims) enslave for sex and massacre Yazidis and Assyrians (who are heretical or non-believers). Except one is far less at odds with their traditions than the other.

Yeah, but sex trafficking is common among all people of all religions, and not just Islam. No, it doesn't make their actions any more or less abhorrent, but keep in mind that it isn't specific to Islam. The common denominator is corruption within humanity.

31 minutes ago, Kalken said:

You can say that about Nazism and Commuism. Ideologies are not interchangable in their impact on the world.

Nazism is an inherently violent ideology, communism is inherently violent, Islam is not. There's 1-1.5 billion Muslims in the world and if they were inherently violent then they'd take over the world. Or should I say "we" considering I'd be branded a Muslim in any given country despite my beliefs being at odds with it.

31 minutes ago, Kalken said:

And there other issues with Islam besides its high representation in holy violence (see its track record when it comes to modern science).

What is its track record in modern science? There's tons of Muslim scientists and doctors so I don't see your point.

31 minutes ago, Kalken said:

Islamic Apologism. Other countries have been invaded or interfered with by Westerners without producing the hostility and underwhelming backwardness of the Islamic World (see the Islamic World's laughable track record when it comes to modern science). Even in the Islamic World you hardly see Jews engage in terrorism to the same level as Muslims.

a) Islamic apologism? If that's your term for defending Islam, then sure. But I am Muslim and I currently have no hostility towards you, I am not backwards, I am not a terrorist and I'm a scientist.

b) You don't see Jews engage in terrorism because Israel and western Jews are much better off than the rest of the middle east and their Islamic counterparts. But then again, depending on your POV Israel's leadership are warmongers and have a track record of colonization, so I wouldn't lump them together.

31 minutes ago, Kalken said:

What about it? Islam draws in the violent and hostile who lash out on their neighbors. Islam has a history with warring on heretics and/or unbelievers.

So why hasn't the religion self-exterminated? Your argument makes zero sense.

Let us posit that Islam is an inherently violent ideology that exterminates nonbelievers or heretics.

- 1-1.5 billion people in the world are Muslims. If 1-1.5 billion people are inherently violent or prone to violence to nonbelievers or heretics, then that means the other 5.5-6 billion people in the world who are not violent or hostile would be all killed or under siege. But considering you're more likely to get killed in a car accident than a terrorist attack, clearly Muslims aren't inherently violent or prone to violence.

- If their violence is towards non-believers or heretics, then logically the main victims of attacks would be non-Muslims. However, this is false by at least an order of magnitude.

Therefore, your claim is false. Furthermore, the Muslim world is not unified by any stretch of the imagination given the amount of conflict in the region. You're arguing as if Islam is this grand unified ideology somehow when it really isn't unified.

I am curious, what is your end goal here? To exterminate all Muslims? Ban Muslim immigrants from western nations? Because that kind of short-sighted thinking will continue to lead to terrorism for many reasons. If you want people to convert away from Islam, then you're at an ideological extreme and you lack the pragmatism to actually come up with any sort of proper solution to an "issue." (In reality, your conclusion that "Islam is evil" is incorrect given the set of facts we both have.)

Making vague, one or two sentence rebuttals to a complicated issue with vague, meaningless statements does not a good argument make. Making general points is a bad argument because extreme generalizations require one example to contradict. I would advise to stop posting unless you can really defend yourself with details and sources.

 

I think Shoblongoo is far more qualified to talk about the history of the middle east than I can given that he taught me a bunch of things. I think I'm focused too much on Iraq/Afghanistan when I say something about US foreign policy, rather than the Islamic world at large.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Lord Raven

[Kalken]

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Yeah, but sex trafficking is common among all people of all religions, and not just Islam. No, it doesn't make their actions any more or less abhorrent, but keep in mind that it isn't specific to Islam. The common denominator is corruption within humanity.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Slavery#Allah.27s_Opinion_of_Slaves

Enslavement is permitted in Islamic scripture. Your Whataboutism isn't going to help you here.

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Nazism is an inherently violent ideology, communism is inherently violent, Islam is not. There's 1-1.5 billion Muslims in the world and if they were inherently violent then they'd take over the world. Or should I say "we" considering I'd be branded a Muslim in any given country despite my beliefs being at odds with it.

Tell us more on how the invasions of regions like Europe and India didn't happen.

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

What is its track record in modern science? There's tons of Muslim scientists and doctors so I don't see your point.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/08/richard-dawkins-twitter-row-muslims-cambridge

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-differences-on-the-question-of-evolution/

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/isis-bans-evolution-schools

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/23/turkish-schools-to-stop-teaching-evolution-official-says

https://www.nature.com/articles/444026a

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion#The_Argument_from_Admired_Religious_Scientists

http://tribune.com.pk/story/1186109/trailing-behind-muslim-states-make-thin-contribution-global-economy/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/why-atheism-to-replace-re_b_903653.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png

On more than one measure the Islamic World doesn't score well on modern performance be it in modern science (especially considering the far higher Jewish and non-believer presence despite their portions of the global population) or otherwise. Also see Dawkins' words on the Admired Christ Worshipping Scientist:

https://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&pg=PA123&dq=admired+inauthor:"Richard+Dawkins"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwji5667nYHZAhVD2mMKHZixAkwQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=admired inauthor%3A"Richard Dawkins"&f=false

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

a) Islamic apologism? If that's your term for defending Islam, then sure. But I am Muslim and I currently have no hostility towards you, I am not backwards, I am not a terrorist and I'm a scientist.

Modern science doesn't support the claims of Islam so I doubt you can defend being a Muslim using that. How about you tell what it has to offer the modern world?

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Qur'anic_scientific_errors

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#Perspectives_from_the_scientific_community

Actual scientists as a rule reject or doubt active gods.

There is also a negative correlation between subscribing to religions with active deities and intellect:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-8758046.html

http://humanreligions.info/intelligence.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mr-personality/201312/why-are-religious-people-generally-less-intelligent

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/atheists-more-intelligent-than-religious-people-faith-instinct-cleverness-a7742766.html

https://www.indy100.com/article/scientist-looked-through-63-studies-conclude-atheists-more-intelligent-religious-people-metanalysis-7733926

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

b) You don't see Jews engage in terrorism because Israel and western Jews are much better off then the rest of the middle east and their Islamic counterparts. But then again, depending on your POV Israel's leadership are warmongers and have a track record of colonization, so I wouldn't lump them together.

Jews have been in the Middle East for awhile (see Iraqi and Iranian Jews) without engaging in terrorism to the same level as their Muslim neighbors. Christians also while still having Christian terrorist groups in Palestine.

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

So why hasn't the religion self-exterminated? Your argument makes zero sense.

You might as well say that about Communism considering how much symphathy there is for it.

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

- 1-1.5 billion people in the world are Muslims. If 1-1.5 billion people are inherently violent or prone to violence to nonbelievers or heretics, then that means the other 5.5-6 billion people in the world who are not violent or hostile would be all killed or under siege. But considering you're more likely to get killed in a car accident than a terrorist attack, clearly Muslims aren't inherently violent or prone to violence.

Try looking up per capita terrorism.

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

- If their violence is towards non-believers or heretics, then logically the main victims of attacks would be non-Muslims. However, this is false by at least an order of magnitude.

"Heretic" implies they can be called Muslim. Anyway:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Fighting_Non-Muslims

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Forced_Conversion

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Muhammad_and_Warmongering

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Muhammad_and_Terrorism

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Muhammad_and_Mass_Murder

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Atheists

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Characteristics_of_Non-Muslims

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Non-Muslims_are_Damned_to_Hell

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Persecution_of_Non-Muslims

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dar_al-Harb

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Genocides,_Cultural_Genocides_and_Ethnic_Cleansings_under_Islam

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

I am curious, what is your end goal here? To exterminate all Muslims? Ban Muslim immigrants from western nations? Because that kind of short-sighted thinking will continue to lead to terrorism for many reasons.

I would recommend neutering the Abrahamic creeds around the world when one can't just remove them.

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by eclipse
Appreciate the research, but I'd rather not trample on another site's Terms and conditions.

[eclipse]

1 hour ago, Kalken said:

(snip)

Removed the images because they're a direct violation of that site's terms and conditions.  Specifically, this:

Quote

The content and data contained on the springernature.com websites are not permitted to be distributed in any form and must not be implemented on any third-party websites.

 

[Lord Raven]

1 hour ago, Kalken said:

Enslavement is permitted in Islamic scripture. Your Whataboutism isn't going to help you here.

It's not a whataboutism. I'm not saying "what about other...?" so much as "this kind of thing is not unique to one culture, we have to solve the issue without pointing fingers."

Slavery is in the majority of scriptures. The issue is not related to Islam. The issue is social. The USA is much further along in development than many of these areas for one reason or another, despite the wide influence of Christianity. Western Europe is the same way. When conflict settles down significantly, then Islam won't be the poster child for terrorism.

Christianity was a source of significant conflict and used as justification for lynching in the USA. This implies there is a problem with social development that must be addressed, not religion.

1 hour ago, Kalken said:

Tell us more on how the invasions of regions like Europe and India didn't happen.

I'm not denying that. Please do not be snippy and give me some halfassed bullshit.

1 hour ago, Kalken said:

On more than one measure the Islamic World doesn't score well on modern performance be it in modern science (especially considering the far higher Jewish and non-believer presence despite their portions of the global population) or otherwise. Also see Dawkins' words on the Admired Christ Worshipping Scientist:

I'm not reading all that shit. Summarize it, source your summaries, and provide your own argument and conclusions. You only gave a conclusion with zero argument.

1 hour ago, Kalken said:

Modern science doesn't support the claims of Islam so I doubt you can defend being a Muslim using that. How about you tell what it has to offer the modern world?

Because people who point fingers at Islam are bringing people into it who are not necessarily Muslim but would end up being "branded" Muslim due to heritage and/or upbringing. If the issue is with modern religion as a whole -- don't single out one and talk about realistic solutions outside of "eliminate religion." Your argument lacks pragmatism.

Were religion eliminated, many of these issues would continue because the people would find other identities to rally around. The latter is a far more important point than religion.

1 hour ago, Kalken said:

Actual scientists as a rule reject or doubt active gods.

Objectively false.

1 hour ago, Kalken said:

Jews have been in the Middle East for awhile (see Iraqi and Iranian Jews) without engaging in terrorism to the same level as their Muslim neighbors. Christians also while still having Christian terrorist groups in Palestine.

Yes, because they're in the minority and the ruling class has an identity to control the majority. It's in the best interests of the ruling class for conflict and minorities to blame. Israel is also more developed than Palestine, given they're either advantageous in a conflict or not engaged in other conflict.

Territorial conflicts are inherent and are a cause of many conflicts that appear religious in nature. Territorial conflict is how minorities form within countries, and how nationalist/supremacist majorities take over the minorities. And Israel/Palestine is a territorial dispute.

1 hour ago, Kalken said:

You might as well say that about Communism considering how much symphathy there is for it.

Address the point instead of deflecting.

1 hour ago, Kalken said:

Try looking up per capita terrorism.

So you, in this statement, both avoided addressing the point, deflected, and then refused to talk about your point. Congratulations.

1 hour ago, Kalken said:

"Heretic" implies they can be called Muslim.

You are deflecting. Address the point in full. That detail does not even take anything away from my point.

1 hour ago, Kalken said:

I would recommend neutering the Abrahamic creeds around the world when one can't just remove them.

And how specifically do you plan on doing that? What solution would lead to "neutering" the creeds around the world? I would agree to some extent but to another extent I would disagree because it doesn't solve a problem, it just creates a new, similar one.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Lord Raven

[blah the Prussian]

17 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

They aren't as represented in terrorism against the Western world, but that hardly means that they aren't represented in terrorism. The assassins of Mohandas Gandhi, for example, were Hindu extremists angered by the creation of Pakistan, and the Hindutva movement continues to perpetrate violence against Muslims in India and is quasi-Fascist. Again, this isn't against the West because they stopped having issues with the West after the end of the Raj, but it is there. As to Hindu wars of religion, my god, pick a number. The Mughal-Maratha Wars come to mind, but India's history has been rife with conflict between Hindus and Muslims and the Hindus have been hardly innocent in this. Of course, Hinduism was often not the root cause of this, but, as I'll get to, neither was Christianity or Islam for their religion's wars.

Virtually nothing in the Quran is reliable as a source on Mohammed. You have to remember that everything that he did was passed down orally for two generations before the first Muslim historians wrote them down. Regardless, it's hard to describe Mohammed as a "warlord" at least initially. I can guarantee you, however, that the Arabs still would have invaded the Byzantine East and Sassanid Persia, because both had just finished fighting a long and devastating war with each other. The Arabs were a raiding people, and saw weakness; that had much, much more to do with the early expansion of the Caliphate than did Islam. It's also worth noting that after the Arabs conquered the Byzantine East and the Sassanids their borders coalesced mostly around what is now the Islamic world. They launched raids against their neighbors from France to China, but ultimately didn't commit to expansion in any direction except towards Constantinople. If they were a bunch of Jihadi zealots they wouldn't have stopped; instead they were people who expanded in the face of weakness and stopped when they found strength, much like any other Empire.

(sidenote about Jizya- there was a tax that non Muslims had to pay, but on the other hand Muslims also had to pay a special tax into state public services; non-Muslims didn't have to contribute to this, so it evened out)

To say the Thirty Years War was caused by religion is the lazy explanation designed to prove a political point but it ignores what was really going on. The Protestant Reformation came at a time when the House of Hapsburg was consolidating their control over the Holy Roman Empire; Protestantism found acceptance among sovereigns who were opposed to the interests of Rome and Vienna. So, as the Northern German princes began to form the Protestant League they did so not because they were zealots who wanted to force their beliefs on others but because Protestantism was an excellent way to identify yourself as an enemy of the Empire's centralization. For the Emperor to enforce Catholicism, meanwhile, was an excellent tool to exert Imperial dominance, as happened when Rudolf II's edict allowing the Czechs freedom to practice Protestantism was revoked. Thus the Thirty Years War was less a religious war and more a war about the centralization of the Holy Roman Empire. For further evidence: Catholic France sided with the Protestants, because France didn't want a centralized HRE. This is true of many conflicts ostensibly about religion; there are almost always deeper elements at work.

Overall a mistake that a lot of people make when thinking about history is adopting the idea that people in the past were idiots. This was not the case. People in the past weren't a bunch of fanatical lunatics frothing at the mouth to burn the infidels; they were normal people with earthly concerns for whom religion was just a part of life, and often a convenient political tool.

@Kalken

Also, didn't mention it earlier but it doesn't matter what the Quran said because we're talking about the impact of Islam. As to slaves, slavery was present in Arab society long before Islam; the religion was mounded by the existing society.

[Kalken]

In regards to the claim that Muslim terrorism is just from victimization by the Big Bad Americans/West:

https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/18796/a-century-after-sykes-picot-is-there-a-better-map-for-the-middle-east

Here are some sources tackling the so-called Islamic Golden Age:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Science#Islamic_Science_and_the_Golden_Age

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/How_Islamic_Inventors_Did_Not_Change_The_World

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/17192/beyond-tolerance-and-intolerance_deconstructing-th

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTpeJFcDt2M

http://www.jadaliyya.com:80/pages/index/17192/beyond-tolerance-and-intolerance_deconstructing-th

http://www.weeklystandard.com/moorish-dreams/article/2002568 (criticial of the above but still casts doubt on the IGA)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almohad_Caliphate#Status_of_non-Muslims

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/What_Islamic_Civilization

https://books.google.com/books?id=yBKno5aCvMgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=SPAIN+inauthor:"Roger+Collins"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwji_aCUtoHZAhUL4WMKHZ7BCi4Q6AEILzAB#v=snippet&q=golden&f=false (another book)

Some sources on terrorist demographics:

http://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsOfTerrorismInUS_Nov2017.pdf

https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/what-threat-united-states-today/

https://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/photos/a.130184327167571.1073741828.123061011213236/429872877198713/?type=3&permPage=1

https://web.archive.org/web/20111014233722/https://wits.nctc.gov/FederalDiscoverWITS/index.do?N=0

 

As you can see, the Christians and Muslms score highly.

[Jotari]

7 hours ago, Kalken said:

Demonstrate the accomplishments that weren't derived from Europeans (Greeks), Chinese, or civilizations that were significant before Islam (see Persia, or Egypt). And performed by actual Muslims (read: Not Christians, Jews, or heretics). Richard Dawkins took the piss out of this card when it came to Christians.

Might be completely off due to lack of real knowledge, but as far as I know the Arabic Numeral System stems from the early Islamic world.