lmao@christians(and atheists)

That one's still my favourite, cause it's just the way we (us geeks) are :D

http://xkcd.com/309/

Nerd+GF is the worst.

Also: Hi! A reply! :D

haha :D

Thanks for the help, dude!

The only annoying atheists are the ones who don't understand atheism. All theists are annoying, since they don't understand anything.

why would they have to understand anything? they just have to believe

Their belief requires them to ignore the fundamental facts that support everything else.

over the time i've seen similar posts like yours from native english speakers and i never quite understood what they meant.

afaik atheism comes from the greek 'theos' (god) and has the added prefix 'a-' (without), which gives you a simple 'without god(s)' as a rough translation, right?

so... what is there do understand about atheism, it's just the lack of believe in super natural beings/gods/whatever? am i missing something?

The word "atheist" was originally for the purpose of a label, not for the actual atheist position.

the definition of atheism is indeed very simple. there are sadly still many people that get it completely wrong (particularly non-atheists defending aggressively their beliefs in internet arguments).

That's why it should be renamed to "antitheism" and "antitheist".

That way the misconception of atheists being some kind of "believers" in something will just vanish.

Fuck religion. Religious people are indoctrinated, brainwashed fucktards.

Most of the time, atheists are being more dogmatic in their beliefs, than religious people, claiming they can see everything as it is with their positivism; not seeing that they are legitimizing everything this way.

That's a steaming pile of bullshit if ever I saw one.

Ur a streaming pile of bullshit

i ask this question every time i think of "atheist communities" on youtube/reddit/etc:

"how the fuck can you spend years on the internet talking about not doing something?"

if their goal is to have a more egalitarian world or whatever, then they're talking about the wrong shit.

I sorta know what you mean, I don't really know what anyone would get out of reading The God Delusion myself... aren't you just gonna be reading your own opinion?

pretty much.

Your own opinion maybe, but its rare that you can back up that opinion with the type of 'evidence' Dawkins provides. Having read the book myself, I can tell you that I am not an evolutionary biologist and therefore enjoyed seeing Dawkins present evidence for his claims.

That being said, I'm in no rush to read any other books on Atheism, not because I think Dawkins book is the be all and end all. Rather I don't need to waste thousands of pages reading my own opinion as you said :P

Atheism is not a movement or belief system - it's not about "not doing something", but about a response to the claims of theism.

i'd say its a belief-system, as opposed to agnosticism

that's because you're using the incorrect neologism of both terms.

please elaborate

the only way i can make sense of this comment:

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1928282#pid1928282

is to assume that you're defining atheism as "a belief that there are no gods" and agnosticism as "theological uncertainty" or something like that.

atheism means disbelief in the existence of gods and agnosticism is the position that things cannot be known. in fact, agnosticism requires a BELIEF about the nature of knowledge and atheism doesn't require any kinds of belief, because it's simply a lack of belief in gods.

satisfied?

yes, very:)

edit:

its arguable tho that disbelief infact is a belief.

and the only belief that agnosticism needs is a belief in the understanding of obvservable and scientitic things, and not a belief in something that has no empiricism whatsoever.

In which case everything is a belief and thus this entire argument is void. A useless way to look at things.

That why most people define Belief as something that is believed without evidence.

its arguable tho that disbelief infact is a belief.

only through equivocation.

and the only belief that agnosticism needs is a belief in the understanding of obvservable and scientitic things, and not a belief in something that has no empiricism whatsoever.

agnosticism and gnosticism are simply philosophical positions on whether or not things can be known. i happen to believe that human beings, and probably all other possible forms of life, do not have the faculties to know anything. i can't even be certain about whether or not reality or anyone else exists.

How can not believing in something be a belief-system? That's like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby, or not being a lawyer is a job.
Agnosticism is exactly the same as Atheism by they way. Atheists and agnostics are people who do not believe in any deity but will do given enough evidence. Atheist are not God-deniers or something like that, it's just that we have no particular reason to believe in a man-like higher power.

then why call it Atheism, cause that's what the word means.

Atheism means "God deniers"?

no, i'm not sure of the literal translation.

but its a negation of theism, as in no god/non god

The term is only required due to Theism being widespread and thus it becomes important to proclaim that you aren't a theist so people know you aren't mentally handicapped.

What else could an Atheist use as a descriptive term? Other words that could seem to express that opinion and filled with lots of other baggage making them unusable.

There is no gods to deny or negate but there is a world view/belief that must be negated and thus a word that expresses the opposite is the most functional and understandable.

you might call agnosticism a sub group of atheism, but agnosticists do not deny god, afaik

Agnosticism doesn't have anything specifically to do with the gods debate, it is a stance that all things are unknowable (a-gnosticism = without knowledge) and thus is a completely separate debate.

You can be an Agnostic-Theist, Gnostic-Theist or a Agnostic-Atheist and Gnostic-Atheist.

Atheism does not lay claim to anything - it is the position that there is no evidence for theism.

it's a lack of belief in any gods, to be specific.

the way i understand it, you are describung agnosticism. atheism on the other hand is the firm belief that god does not exist.

Careful! 25+ posts about how you're wrong incoming.

aslong as someone explains how i'm wrong, i don't mind..

No. Atheism is not a belief, it is the *absence* of belief. It's a subtle but important difference. I mean, it doesn't even make sense, i don't believe that there is no god, i know it as clearly as i know there are no koala bears gnawing at my testicles.

well, theres two pairs of shoes, the absence of belief, or the belief that there is no god.

Most often the latter takes on a substitute. Fate, nature, The Universal Plan, whatever, you get the idea. True atheism is the former.

one is a claim and the other is not.

if there are or not koala bears gnawing at your testicles, is something you can verify
if there is a/some god or not, you can't verify ; as you can't verify that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists or not, or that the Church of Last Thursday tells the truth or lies, etc

No, but you can review the available information and draw conclusions from that.

What i've seen and read, it's obvious to me that popular religions are finely tuned and crafted instruments of civilian manipulation and control, with, fortunately, less and less influence on a global scale. Of course, i'll never be able to verify if there do exist some ancient cosmic entities (or if they do not exist, for that matter) on and over the borders of our perceptible reality, but that being so, why would i waste my time with pondering/worshiping them, or even allowing man-made tenets that pass on as "their word" to influence my life? Hey if someone does just that, fuck it, their choice, live and let live, my choice is to have both my feet on the ground and not give a rat's ass about that non-empirical bullshit.

Should have just used the first paragraph, i always get carried away when talking about this shit. :E Oh well.

religions might appear that way to you, but fact is, they were very important institutions for many people for many centuries.

they didn't always appear as dispensable, as they do in today's very secularised society.

That's because they've been implanted so deep into our collective social consciousness that even today organized religion seems like a natural part of it. Once it took hold (threats and acts of violence justified by accusations of heresy and promises of pre and post-mortem awards for faith and obedience helped a lot to mold the grey peasant matter) it took us this long to finally start cutting off the strings. The dark ages are over, institutions built on ignorance are obsolete anachronisms that have no place in the here and now (note i'm separating personal belief from organizations).

ok..

imo <-

~_~

uhm hi, mowli called, he wants his double standards back.


@(pair of shoes comment u made)

1) Lack of belief still classifies as a belief. And both of those can use substitutes you mentioned for the latter only. Only difference is that the former example, the substitute is just what is considered common sense (teeth are not sinking in to my balls, hence, no koalas are gnawing them). Just because the former is rationalised does not make it any less of a substitute than the latter.


2) You still treat every source of mass religion as an attempt to opiate the masses without acknowledging the positive sides of religion that do exist (such as feeling of togetherness, pride, affection for something). Hell yes, organised religion is a bad thing, no forms of opiate for the masses ever are completely good (be they promise of gold, (or quite ironically, feelings of togetherness, pride or affection for something). And yes, more often than not, religion was the cause of atrocities in the world. But just as often as non-religious causes.

Territorial disputes, greed, fear have all contributed. During GESTAPO or NKVD times, did people rat on each other because of religion or based on some sort of survival instinct?

Final paragraph: Extremist anything is bad, be it religion or atheism. People burning crosses are just as bad as islamic extermists or those fucked up jesus freaks in america who let their children die instead of taking them to have injecitons. Just because you don't agree, doesnt mean that the epitome of human falldown is completely highlighted in religion in itself. What is bad about an old woman in church on easter, crying and lighting a candle for her deceased relatives? Or a jewish family on Sabbath enjoying a meal? Or a Muslim man telling his son the history of their people? As i said to you before, it is human nature that makes people what they are, religious atrocities are just catalysts, without those, same things would happen, just based on the colour of your hair, or what football team you support. c:


p.s. Is it that time of year again? :@

Lack of belief still classifies as a belief

No.

What is an extremist atheist?

an extremist atheist is the person who goes to great lengths on social networks and such, trolling the shit out of people who are religious enough to be offended, simply for the fuck of it.

That's not extremist atheism that's just trolling.

he beheads those who insult atheism

I already referred to the lack of belief = belief thing, see reply #47. As for substitutes, well, i'd think common sense is something anyone would prefer? :-E Rationalization and proper evaluation and judgment of events as opposed to being driven by superstition. It's not mutually exclusive nor superstition is inherently bad, it just tends to get twisted around and used as a cloak for bigotry and hatred. Let's not fool ourselves, superstition is a weak point that's been constantly exploited by men in positions of power for their own ends, religious or otherwise.

Moving on, you are absolutely right on all accounts in 2), but that doesn't excuse organized religion in any way, like, at all. Just because there are things equally destructive and, frankly, evil, motivations behind malice and horrible things men do to each other in the name of.

I'm *not* singling out organized religion as the sole source of all that's bad (it can be traced almost universally to simple things you mentioned besides, greed etc) or trying to negate the good things about it, although i will say that, one, they do not outweigh the bad things committed in the name of (even if only seemingly) an abstract belief and all-powerful father-y figure that could or could not exist.

Two, all the good things brought by religion can just as easily be achieved with other means, in ways with less potential for exploitation of participants. Charity, social events, a damn sewing circle bring people as close as the temple of God. Common sense and acknowledgment of the needs of others, hell, just some basic empathy and openness towards your immediate social surroundings can have just as big an impact.

And three, frankly, i just think a global organization of a socio-political nature with a mass of obedient followers is just fucking scary, man. But in light of the terrorist threats and attacks i guess that's no big news to anyone. I agree with your final statement but in decentralizing the structure and updating the old tenets you at least get rid of one excuse AND a source of extremely dangerous, archaic worldviews at the same time. There is as much potential for good as there is for evil in religion, however history taught us that the more powerful a religion gets, the more bloodshed ensues (with the prime exception of Buddhism, but it's gentle and noble tenets practically exclude it's use as a tool of hatred).

Alsoplustoo there are different levels of commitment to a cause, i mean a guy could probably fuck me up for supporting a team he hates, but will he fly a boeing into a building or detonate a bomb in a crowded subway because of that shit? Doubt it. Organized religion is an extremely potent tool to focus and use all the evil shit that we have inside us, few other things can inspire people to such levels of dumbfuckery.

Also what double standards. :@

you're pole and writing long sentences. THAT DOUBLE STANDARDS BRO.

Also fully agree with your points. How comes we wasted like 4 hours on IRC last year trying to solve exactly the same? I think it was the fact it wasn't possible to convey your whole point in several paragraphs without the other person interrrupting c:

I actually replied with #47 also in mind. not sure how it justifies the "lack of belief" argument though. i was simply pointing out how both style of atheism/whatever can be substituted. It is just how rationalised your substitution apparently shows the difference. Live and live argument = wery

All in all, fine points, Pan Kielczynski.

Haha yeah. I think we were both also kinda raging at random unrelated irl shit at the time too so kinda looked for a way to vent taht frustration in a convo. :p Which is cool, iirc we reached basically the same conclusions as this time around. :D Except kryzystopher was being asshole and tried to troll.

kurwa go IRC

Also i have raged non-stop since dropping out of uni in 07(apart from that 6 month weed and coke spree, 2high2rage c:) , and am raging now, so that point is invalid. Apart from that, yea.

Also krystopf is out of ze internet atm. playing kotor2 or some shit c:

Holy shit bro, I've just really enjoyed rereading this debate

Innit. Rarely do internet arguments end on a positive note, especially ones that touch on delicate, personal subjects. WE ARE TO BE BLESINK NOT BE RETART MEN)) KIFFLOM komrad)

So instead of wasting your time worshiping a deity you waste in arguing about it on the internet? I'm not pointing out you in particular, I've just noticed this is a quite ironic and unfortunately common trend.

Sure, spending a few minutes (hours, if the discussion is prolonged) on arguments is equal to devoting your whole life to fiction. What?

nope. what you're talking about is antitheism. which is what most so called "atheists" propound.

Hi wonko, long time no see \o/

A common mistake, actually. Agnosticism makes the claim that you cannot know if a god is real or not (thus, being on the fence), while atheism specifically relies on evidence. Atheism doesn't even state that there ARE no gods, or that there cannot be gods, but merely that there is no supporting evidence in any way for them.

they talk about it because they're getting a lot of shit for that from religious communities or rights-wise when it comes to policies of more religious countries.

in before 200+ post, y0

.

xD

This thread is pure trolling material for esr.

I think an open poll would be better: Your religious views:

:P

esr's average user seems to worship cooller

don't blaspheme the god-king.

thus he spake "your lg is nothink on the lan"; and from the void sprung forth a rocket lawnchair; and he saw that it was goood ¦]

I still remember when "q3" won every poll :(

don't worry, will never happen with "ql"

i believe i don't believe

Atheism implies cooller doesn't exist, hence the flaw.

crushing argument:]

oh yeah i also hate ppl who are sooo atheist they have to convince everyone they meet that religion sucks

There is a word for it, they're called 'teens'

I never call myself an atheist, cuz its a word full of negativity in a typical everyday audience, although I don't belive in anything, except for the easterbunny

Theres nothing wrong with atheists. Just like theres nothing wrong with muslims, christians, jews, hindoes etc.etc.

The problem comes when people go "Actively expressing and sharing their gospel" (part of evangelism). That's why there is a problem with mormons and jehova witnesses (as their religion forces/obliges them to try and convince others of their views).
Many fundamentalists also have this "need to convince others" even though it is not actually within their religeous books (although it might be in the koran and the thora but I'm not 100% sure on that).

The nice thing about atheism in this aspect is that no book is telling you how you should act. So any individual, that does the above, does his actions on his own account and not "because he is an atheist".

Islam is nothing more than a catalyst for world war III.

the islam is a very peace loving religion... even more so than christianity in many cases.
Only a few fundamentalistic muslims are in the news and kill the reputation of the religion.

lolol no surprise netherlands is in the shitter

netherlands in the shitters?
What are you talking about?

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2219/nether...ulturalism

Glad that everyone is waking up but the damage might already been done.

I hate anyone who abuses animals, so for me muslims will always be villified for the way they insist on killing animals.

Worse of all, they are sneaking the meat into everyone elses diet so many in the UK are eating halal meat. You go to a "subway" in London, chances are its halal.

Seeing animals die for meat is bad enough but its life, but to cut their throats and leave them dying slowly while reading that bookofshite really makes my blood boil.

perhaps the link you gave requires some explanation.

This is due to the way the netherlands dealt with the integration in the past. This was far from optimal (perhaps even wrong).
It is NOT that we suddenly would disallow other cultures.

We just don't want them completely seperated from the rest of the world. In some cities you got "all muslim schools" and this was because of how the dutch former governments set up support programs for immigrants as well as the existing legislation for these supporting programs.

But dutch people don't want "other people" who then lock themselves up and only participate in actions done by "similar people".
We would much rather see that all "regular dutch schools" had a similar composure of students (schools is just 1 example...). Basically we were building around 4 completely seperate cultures and encouraging people to seek contact with others from their culture.
Now we encourage them to also parttake in activities that dutch people like and show us what kind of activities they like.

It doesnt matter if it is or not, what matters is it has a growing sect of deluded violent extremists who are convinced their objective in life is to spread it around the world by any means possible and they all have one thing in common. Islam. And its only getting bigger.

same could be said about the christians from around year 0 all the way up to the 1800's... and probably even after that as well.

But I guess history is best forgotten....

Errr yeah, HISTORY<<<

The fact that you are having to talk about something hundreds of years ago to seemingly justify what I say in much more civil times only highlights my point even more.

The world is a much more civil place now, but islam is much less evolved, the world will not tolerate what happened in the past today, especially in countries that are predominantly christian.

the world is a more civil place due to science (including philosophy) which reduced the church's power within the western world.

Muslim extremists are not governed by anything but their own skewered views.

That is the whole issue.

Their idea of negotiation is threats. intimidation and violence.

duh.. that's why their called "Extremists".

don't tell Jamerio that man it's much more fun when he remains completely ignorant.

True I must say.

I said "skewered views", being an extremist does not mean the views you have are skewered. The problem comes when you are an extremist with skewered views and then ACT on those skewered views.

If you idiots could not dig money out of the ground and import the tech from the brains and ingenuity you do not posses on a social level you would still be living in caves.

Though i can see coming from Kuwait this is would be awkward for you as you are filled with this cancerous religion, dont worry, its only a matter of time before the US turns you into a glass bowl and everyone is is fastly becoming aware of your 2nd most famous export.

And yes I would say it to your face and the rest of your pyjama patrol.
.

Same goes to you...
http://esreality.com/post/2342975/re-xkcd-atheists/#pid2342975

Ah yes extremists not having skewered views... Jamerio is back!

I'd like to meet an extremist conservative democrat... just for the fun of it :D

Extremist does not mean having skewered views.

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/skewed

"opinions, ideas, or judgments that are skewed have been affected by something, making them strange or unfair"

Always happy to educate.

So you would call a muslim extremists' views not skewered... if he has not been affected by something.

It's nice to see you digging a hole that only goes deeper and deeper :D

"So you would call a muslim extremists' views not skewered..."

no, because it has so many variables. An extremist of any kind can still be good. A quaker on esreality can be defined as an extremist within fps circles. A skewered one would be someone like Heartless.

This is why I used the word SKEWERED after the term "muslim extremist" to show I was referring the problematic type.

Face the facts, you and the islamist from Kuwait took a cheap shot several posts back cos you run out of things to say and this is now your weak attempt at trying to make that fit.

you did the same thing to backsteen about his nade jump on dm13, until you back tracked so much to save your ego, you said what he did was possible years before, what you forgot is, it would have been impossible to do what he did because the teleport exit was in the other room.

And everyone had a good laugh about that too, just as I am here with you trying to make your cheapshot stick to save your ego.

Me, I still have rational answers to your misunderstandings...

right... I think you're using a different meaning for religious extremist than what I am... or you're pretending to do so now because you're in too deep.

You are going for the meaning of hmm.. 'a person that will go further than others in order to achieve some goal' where the goal itself can be whatever (extreme / normal / honorable / whatever).
The meaning that the rest of the world uses, in the context given, is "
extremist - a person who holds extreme views."
and
"extremist- (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical"

"or you're pretending to do so now because you're in too deep."

For the record I said what I said in my ORIGINAL statement, before you accused me of making any mistake.

"Muslim extremists are not governed by anything but their own skewered views."

"The meaning that the rest of the world uses..."

So now you are claiming to know what context the rest of the world uses, sure...

Anyway im bored of you now and the footy is on.

Insert self convincing I won you lost thing below....

it's in the dictionairy for a reason.

It only takes a few...

what are the islamic commandments?

the islam is a very peace loving religion

are
you
fucking
kidding
me?

I
kid
you
not!

Do you have any more gems? Like maybe how islam respects women?

Only a few fundamentalistic muslims are in the news and kill the reputation of the religion.

If islam was a peaceful religion the fundamentalists would be the most peaceful of all.

you should watch http://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazelton_on_r...koran.html

The main problem with the 'fundamentalism of the islam' is that most people are not fundamental muslims but fundamental followers of the imam/religious group.
This is mainly due to the lack of schooling in the countries which are so much in the news (aka taliban countries). Most of the taliban fighters can't read but have a feeling that there is a higher power (much like it was the case in europe just 500 years ago).

The leaders of the fundamental groups use bits and pieces of a (self-) translated koran for political (or other) gain.

The main problem with the 'fundamentalism of the islam' is that most people are not fundamental muslims but fundamental followers of the imam/religious group.

Can you paraphrase that please? It comes off as if you think everyone should be a fundamentalist.

ah ye sorry didn't see you could read it like you are doing.
What I mean is:

The main problem with the 'fundamentalism of the islam/muslims' is that most of the fundamental muslims are not "fundamental followers of the koran" but "fundamental followers of the imam/religious group".
Aka the guy who "leads the group" is someone who interprets the koran for his own benefit (or perhaps better said "according to his own views and values").

And you think those who advocate violence are the ones who are interpetting it wrong?

well I think that from the start of christianity up till the 1800's the christian leaders were intepretting the bible in a (extremely) similar way.
To me virtually all "evil things" that we project upon fundamental muslims are not actually in the koran (at least not literally).

Ofcourse the religeous books are filled with ambigious lines of text and they leave you very free to interpret things. But in many cases the bible is a lot more bloody and evil than the koran is.

btw I am an atheist so to me all religions are evil in one way and awesome in another way. Where I feel that religeous people can "take from it what they want".
There are a lot of +'s and -'s but the most important - that is there is that religious leaders have power.

Now in the western world this power is very reduced. For instance europeans and north americans use anti-conception while the pope clearly sais that they will burn in hell for it. In other places in the world this is not the case. For instance in Africa the pope's words are regarded as truth.
The same holds for the muslim world. In places like Afghanistan people trust what their religious leader tells them (which often leads to abusing women for instance). While at places like egypt or dubai the people make up their own minds a lot more.

This above, I feel, is mainly due to education. Places where most people are educated show shitloads less extremism and fundamentalism because people can make up their own minds much better.

Look, to say that there are positive teachings in the quran as well as negative is one thing, but to say that "virtually all evil things we project on fundamental muslims are not actually in the quran" to me is just being incredibly naive.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html

funny that www.quran.com does not have these lines in them at all.
I read the first line of your link: "[2.178]...retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain... [2.179] ...there is life for you in (the law of) retaliation, O men of understanding, that you may guard yourselves."

According to other online resources (above) this reads:
[2.178]
"O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But whoever overlooks from his brother anything, then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment to him with good conduct. This is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy. But whoever transgresses after that will have a painful punishment."
[2.179]
And there is for you in legal retribution [saving of] life, O you [people] of understanding, that you may become righteous.

Where 2.178 could be seen as the islamic "eye for an eye" principle... but it has the clause that if it fails then more punishment should come.

This ofcourse is VERY DIFFERENT from:

If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22-25)


Like I said m8 they are not that different.

The Shakir translation(from answering-islam.org) is there too, but it's not selected by default.

Anyway, I agree that they are not that different(and you can add Judaism to that list) and I also agree that christianity is violent too, but I don't understand why you think islam is less violent. Even if you presume that only fundie muslims are blowing themselves up for the virgins in heaven and all that I don't think I've heard about christians doing the same thing on the news lately because someone is misinterpreting the bible.

Well to answer you on which is less violent and why. I would have to really read all the religeous books in detail etc.. Which I don't want to do.
The most important thing I think you can take from me is the line:
"To me virtually all "evil things" that we project upon fundamental muslims are not actually in the koran (at least not literally)."

And me saying that the Islam is less violent is mainly just to make you think about the above line.


About your line: "Even if you presume that only fundie muslims are blowing themselves up for the virgins in heaven and all that I don't think I've heard about christians doing the same thing on the news lately because someone is misinterpreting the bible. "
I can say that christians did a WAY better job, than what muslims are doing atm, at murdering / plundering / ruling over / etc.. Christians actually used whole armies to invade countries and try to make people submit to christianity.
Christian "jihads" were the crusades. After that when christians 'invaded the whole American continent' religion always told the people their actions were righteous. Even when millions of natives there died.

Christians have a much much darker history than any other religion simply because they had more power and thus more influence.

There is a reason why the church banned Galileo and copernicus' book as well as substantially hindered many scientific revolutions... they wanted people to remain ignorant, obedient, stupid and following without question. Christians a few centuries back were just like the non-educated muslims are now.

Ofcourse talking net damage christianity takes it with a knockout - we need only mention the dark ages. But keep in mind that islam is a younger religion. Also it seems like Iran wants to settle the score.

Would I read it correctly if I were to say that you "dislike" the muslim religion more than christianity because someday in the future they might avenge the western world for christianity's own crimes of the past?
Interresting.

Nice that you put dislike in quotes. I'd probably go with "fear" or "disgust". And a huge part of it is also not what they'll do in the future to humanity but what they're already doing to half of it(women).

ye I was in doubt which word to put in between the quotes... before I hit send it actually said fear... but I thought it would be too strong so I changed it to dislike ;)

However the possition of the women has less to do with religion than with tradition. In all religions the women are "submissive" to the men in some way, and there are punishments for when they do not obey.
However it is seriously retarded that "women should not sexually tempt men" in the islamic world often means "women must wear burqa's". And it's even more fubar that, the interpretation (in some islamic countries) of this same line means that, if a man does cheat the woman is to blame for it.

But imo this too is more because a lack of education and power in the hands of the wrong people (structure of religion) than due to the actual koran.

I don't know why you want to separate the two. Religion is their tradition.

tradition is easier broken away from than religion.

Because religion is something that you can't alter yourself. You can't say "I'm a muslim and I believe in the resurrection of jesus". But you can say "I'm a muslim and I will treat my wife with respect" even though traditionally they have been treated like animals.

Eh pre-islam tradition is how women were and sometimes are treated and women do have rights in Islam, it's just bad arab traditions or even persian traditions.

I don't really see where we differ....

what you said could have been taken as "I'm a muslim and I will treat my wife with respect even though most don't"

which is technically wrong even by pre-islamic and islamic history as women got respect depending on the region but it was weird I guess and the documented cases were generally the bad ones.

I kinda mean that people that don't really show respect to women use the excuse of tradition/history in order to justify their actions.(while ofcourse it can't be justified...).
While they don't use the excuse of "my religion tells me it's ok to treat women like dirt" like Nzr0 kinda sais.

at least you get it.

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

http://quran.com/4 4:34

They don't need an excuse if it's already divinely mandated.

like I said all religions say that the women are (or should be) submissive to men. In the bible women are also sentenced to stoning because they cheated.
Doesn't mean that they deserve no respect.

I'm not a big fan of any religion. I just think that the islam is being unfairly treated by (mainly christian) people in the western world.
And it is probably also the other way around (for instance that christians are being painted off to be child molesters) by muslims.

These missconceptions is why there is such a rediculous war on terror.

Perhaps both are right... but they won't take my advice to stop believing in fairy tales :(

Perhaps I am finding the wrong sites to have a fair objective stance on it.
But I must say the site you link seems to be maintained by some islam hating christian fanatic...
As it has the beautifull lines: " We have no desire that people believe our arguments just because some respectable names of persons, organizations or churches are attached to the site. Often the question comes from Christians who want to be sure, we are evangelical Christians, before they can trust or recommend us.

We do not want Christians (or anyone else) to believe what we write is correct just because we claim to be evangelical"

Also added to that there are tons of jokes about mohammed / islam / etc. And they pretty clearly state that they want people to believe that christianity is the only true form of religion (etc etc...)

People like that (who maintain the site) make me sick. And I truelly hope that they will be treated as is written in the bible and the koran.

ugh :(
needless to say it was my first google guess

Anyway, I already changed the direction of the dialogue in the upper post.

To continue on this though....

Your views are those of almost all people in the western world, while they know nothing about either religion.

The religious structure (of pretty much all religions) is based upon indoctrination and propaganda of their own followers for their own causes.

why is it relevant what you think koran says? Islam is represented by the people who say the follow it and who read it in Arabic. that is by far and large men controlling women as a freeze frame of a medieval family described in koran, who think Allah tells them to spread their faith or kill non-believers because if they are not Allahs people. the fact is, islam is a young and by far the most aggressive religion out there. it was designed this was historically, and it is spreading thanks to it's strict intolerance. to ignore these mechanics is the same as to ignore the mechanics and basic dogma of Christianity, which is servitude and lawful compliance within an already established empire. the moors were the last modern Christians and by embracing some degree of tolerance, they lost to hoards of 'fundamentalists', and the trend is not getting better with Wahhabism getting more and more popular.

I think that all my posts together paint a very different picture than what you're showing here.

The most important difference in the picture is that you say "Islam is represented by the people who say the follow it and who read it in Arabic." (which btw contains a spelling error)
While I say that many followers can't read it yet believe their religeous leader. Who then uses this power over his followers to make them do the most crazy shit ever.

The religion itself is not all that agressive (at least not compared to christianity). As like I said Allah doesn't actually anywhere say that it's followers should kill infidels.
I'm not 100% sure if Allah asks them to spread their faith though...

I think you did not read my post. It's irrelevant what picture you paint. What's relevant is what people do, and why. The reason Islam exists is to unite tribes and conquer. The religion is indeed very "agressive" (which btw contains a spelling error) as a fact of behavior of people. Regardless of the text, which indeed say that either you follow Allah or you are an infidel, narrating conquests and strict patriarchy, the leaders, countries and the populations are enthused by justifications of aggression and power that they find in quran like by no other religion today.

I read your post and I've already answered, on your reply (#132), above.

The things you believe to be in the koran.... are not actually in.
It's because religion in those countries is: spiritual leader sais something -> people believe it.
If we educate the people so they can read for themselves they can see their spiritual leader is full of BS and start discovering the koran on their own.

(I personally am negative towards all religions btw)

Again, it's irrelevant what you think is in koran. Most people who read it believe the same things I do, and it's not because they are uneducated. Even if things are misinterpreted, it doesn't change what Islam is, why it exists, and why koran exists. Islam is an aggressive religion. What you're saying is irrelevant to that.

most people??
Damn your education must've failed as well :(

Most western people percieve this to be the case. Most islamic people would think you're retarded.

Have you actually met any Muslims? I'm pretty sure they'd think you're the retarded and uneducated one, but wouldn't tell you out of pity.

yes I've met quite a few muslims. Some of which I regard as good friends.

And I lived and live among them and had a Muslim girlfriend, and apparently people wanted to kill me for that. Even the dumbest person can understand that a self-righteous aggressor isn't going to call themselves that. The facts are, governments are financing building of mosks and madrases in other countries, sharia is getting more popular, wahhabism is getting more popular. According to examples of muhammad, women have to cover themselves and have no rights. You are not even supposed to read Qur'an translated and are supposed to read it in original writing. So yeah, it is the most aggressive modern religion designed to indoctrinate and subjugate. Educate yourself.

I know it's being abused like that.
Just like christianity was a few centuries ago.

I'm merely showing that people shouldn't fear muslims just because they are muslim. People should fear agressive muslim extremists. (People should also fear agressive christian extremists / agressive jewish extremists / the list goes on and on...)

errh interpreting arabic in to any language is a pain without writing a 2 page essay for a single sentence.

Oh, oh, I have another one. Can you google the punishment for apostasy for me? I think it was something very peaceful.

sure:
"The Qur'an itself does not prescribe any earthly punishment for apostasy; Islamic scholarship differs on its punishment, ranging from..." horrible stuff to really horrible stuff.
wikipedia (quote and I summarised the end).

"only a few"

lols. the world you live in must be a really really happy place. now pass me whatever youre smoking please.

I'm optimistic without doing drugs.

Cultural Marxists everywhere.

So you can say eveything you want about Christianism or islam on this forum but all posts cricticizing israel/sionism or judaism are deleted or not approuved. Interresting.

Who cares, it's all the same shit.