Islam, the unexploded bomb

[icehorse]

I'm not saying the book is perfect. Nothing here is.
I am saying that there are people who have a problem with the book, - not necessarily based on anything they can present any clear argument on

While I'm sure such people exist, in my experience many of us critics can easily point out massive flaws in popular scripture. And when we do point out the flaws, apologists defenses usually seem very weak to me.

So I can say that Abrahamic scripture is often:

- violent
- divisive
- misogynistic
- homophobic
- anti-semitic
- theocratic

Now some religious people will admit that their scripture is not timeless or perfect. They might say it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Or that it's allegorical. I can live with that.

What bothers me is the other religious folks who claim that their scripture is perfect and timeless, AND that I don't know how to read.

 

[nPeace]

While I'm sure such people exist, in my experience many of us critics can easily point out massive flaws in popular scripture. And when we do point out the flaws, apologists defenses usually seem very weak to me.

So I can say that Abrahamic scripture is often:

- violent
- divisive
- misogynistic
- homophobic
- anti-semitic
- theocratic

Now some religious people will admit that their scripture is not timeless or perfect. They might say it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Or that it's allegorical. I can live with that.

What bothers me is the other religious folks who claim that their scripture is perfect and timeless, AND that I don't know how to read.

I believe it is a matter of you believing that you can easily do so, but yet I find people say this, but don't seem able to point out a single reference to support what they say.

The list you provided there is found in all the world.
If you narrow it down, to certain groups of people, then some things are present, others are not.
So that leaves me wondering, what is the argument.

Are you saying the Bible promotes violence, or that it contains violence?
We find violence in the world, and there are organizations, groups, and various entities that promote violence, but every individual in the world, or every group does not promote violence.
So, what are you really saying?

If you can clarify, I'd appreciate that.
Because you also add homophobic as though that is some righteous law that fell from a comet or something with the letters scrawled on it, "Law: It is a crime to be homophobic." Who gets to decide that?

There are some religions also, that we need to be careful are not a fraud.
We live in a world where we use money, but we have to be careful that we don't take money to the bank, and find ourselves before the courts, or in prison. There is fake/counterfeit money, and there are fake/counterfeit religions/ministers of religion.

I don't think they are just saying, you don't know how to read.
Can you paint a masterpiece? Can you draw up proper blueprints for a bungalow? Can you do successful heart surgery?

There are many things I can't do. This is because I have not gone through the processes required for me to do these things. I can't just get up each morning, and just attempt to do these thing, and become a professional. I have to do the theory, and the practical.
Both can take me years, and even after many years in some fields, I would still be learning.

Think of the Bible, in this way.
Some people, make the mistake of thinking the Bible is just a book they can pick up, scurry through, and pick apart, but that's far from reality. It's not a child's play toy, as some mistakenly think.

That is just a simple example of what they mean.

 

[Looncall]

I believe it is a matter of you believing that you can easily do so, but yet I find people say this, but don't seem able to point out a single reference to support what they say.

The list you provided there is found in all the world.
If you narrow it down, to certain groups of people, then some things are present, others are not.
So that leaves me wondering, what is the argument.

Are you saying the Bible promotes violence, or that it contains violence?
We find violence in the world, and there are organizations, groups, and various entities that promote violence, but every individual in the world, or every group does not promote violence.
So, what are you really saying?

If you can clarify, I'd appreciate that.
Because you also add homophobic as though that is some righteous law that fell from a comet or something with the letters scrawled on it, "Law: It is a crime to be homophobic." Who gets to decide that?

There are some religions also, that we need to be careful are not a fraud.
We live in a world where we use money, but we have to be careful that we don't take money to the bank, and find ourselves before the courts, or in prison. There is fake/counterfeit money, and there are fake/counterfeit religions/ministers of religion.

I don't think they are just saying, you don't know how to read.
Can you paint a masterpiece? Can you draw up proper blueprints for a bungalow? Can you do successful heart surgery?

There are many things I can't do. This is because I have not gone through the processes required for me to do these things. I can't just get up each morning, and just attempt to do these thing, and become a professional. I have to do the theory, and the practical.
Both can take me years, and even after many years in some fields, I would still be learning.

Think of the Bible, in this way.
Some people, make the mistake of thinking the Bible is just a book they can pick up, scurry through, and pick apart, but that's far from reality. It's not a child's play toy, as some mistakenly think.

That is just a simple example of what they mean.

The bible is a compendium of folk tales, some nice poetry,, and tribal and religious propaganda.

I agree that it takes training to make it seem like more. Just part of the Great Scam.

 

[icehorse]

First off, I'm finding this to be a really thoughtful conversation - thanks!

Are you saying the Bible promotes violence, or that it contains violence?
We find violence in the world, and there are organizations, groups, and various entities that promote violence, but every individual in the world, or every group does not promote violence.
So, what are you really saying?

Well again, religious people put scripture in its own extra-special category. A lot of my criticism is based not on the scripture itself but by how it's described and yes "enshrined". Religious people declare that their scripture is supernatural and timeless and perfect and represents the highest moral and ethical standards and is the word of the creator of the universe, and so on.

So the religious - all by themselves - set an incredibly high bar for their scripture. I didn't do that, I'm just playing the hand the religious have dealt us. As Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." When you make such claims, you better be ready to endure intense scrutiny and criticism, right?

So what I'm saying is this: Abrahamic scripture does not live up to the claims its adherents make about it.

Because you also add homophobic as though that is some righteous law that fell from a comet or something with the letters scrawled on it, "Law: It is a crime to be homophobic." Who gets to decide that?

This question opens up a whole new line of discussion, that being the source of morality. I'd be happy to join a separate thread on that topic if you start one.

Think of the Bible, in this way.
Some people, make the mistake of thinking the Bible is just a book they can pick up, scurry through, and pick apart, but that's far from reality. It's not a child's play toy, as some mistakenly think.

Here's how I think of scripture, but remember, I'm an atheist:

I assess the scripture mostly based on the claims its adherents make about it and the claims it makes about itself. For example, the Quran declares itself to be easy to understand. So part of my evaluation of the Quran is to test that claim. When an apologist for the the Quran tells me I haven't read it correctly, they are admitting that it's not easy to understand. (BTW, I'm a professional editor.)

I don't recall the Bible declaring itself to be easy to understand however. But when it comes to Bible studies it strikes me that Biblical scholars declare (either implicitly or explicitly), that THEY know the "correct" way to interpret the book. That in itself is an extraordinary claim, correct? And I don't recall ever hearing good evidence that scholars or clerics have editorial superpowers. That somehow they can read exactly the same words as the rest of us, but we have to bow to their conclusions. Really?

 

[nPeace]

The bible is a compendium of folk tales, some nice poetry,, and tribal and religious propaganda.

I agree that it takes training to make it seem like more. Just part of the Great Scam.

Rather than simply making a statement that it is not, I can only note your opinion, since it's just a blanket statement.

 

[nPeace]

First off, I'm finding this to be a really thoughtful conversation - thanks!

My pleasure.

Well again, religious people put scripture in its own extra-special category. A lot of my criticism is based not on the scripture itself but by how it's described and yes "enshrined". Religious people declare that their scripture is supernatural and timeless and perfect and represents the highest moral and ethical standards and is the word of the creator of the universe, and so on.

So the religious - all by themselves - set an incredibly high bar for their scripture. I didn't do that, I'm just playing the hand the religious have dealt us. As Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." When you make such claims, you better be ready to endure intense scrutiny and criticism, right?

So what I'm saying is this: Abrahamic scripture does not live up to the claims its adherents make about it.

I get the impression that you have never read the entire Bible, nor studied it. Do I have that right?
If you haven't, then you would be making judgments based on hearsay - which would be like listening to Fake News, only worst.

If you are listening to its adherents, and they are not reliable, that is, they are really frauds, then again, you are being misinformed - misled, which would result in making false statements, while believing that they are true.

This question opens up a whole new line of discussion, that being the source of morality. I'd be happy to join a separate thread on that topic if you start one.

I was knocking that topic around, on about two threads. It would be interested to hear your input. I'll think about it.
Or you could start one by posting your view.

Here's how I think of scripture, but remember, I'm an atheist:

I assess the scripture mostly based on the claims its adherents make about it and the claims it makes about itself. For example, the Quran declares itself to be easy to understand. So part of my evaluation of the Quran is to test that claim. When an apologist for the the Quran tells me I haven't read it correctly, they are admitting that it's not easy to understand. (BTW, I'm a professional editor.)

I don't recall the Bible declaring itself to be easy to understand however. But when it comes to Bible studies it strikes me that Biblical scholars declare (either implicitly or explicitly), that THEY know the "correct" way to interpret the book. That in itself is an extraordinary claim, correct? And I don't recall ever hearing good evidence that scholars or clerics have editorial superpowers. That somehow they can read exactly the same words as the rest of us, but we have to bow to their conclusions. Really?

So you have read the Bible then, and consider yourself having a good grasp of it? I could put you through a test then?

 

[icehorse]

I get the impression that you have never read the entire Bible, nor studied it. Do I have that right?
If you haven't, then you would be making judgments based on hearsay - which would be like listening to Fake News, only worst.

If you are listening to its adherents, and they are not reliable, that is, they are really frauds, then again, you are being misinformed - misled, which would result in making false statements, while believing that they are true.

I have not read the entire bible, but I've read large chunks of it. (FWIW, I have slogged through the entire Quran.)

But I think you're missing my point.

I consider the bible and quran to be important works of historical fiction. What's important to me is how these books have impacted people in the past, and how they continue to impact people today.

From that perspective, your accusation of hearsay doesn't make sense. For example, the fact that the church banned condoms in Africa is an example of how the bible has influenced behavior. Now you might tell me that - in your opinion - the church misinterpreted the bible. Perhaps you'd be right. But it doesn't matter if you're right. What matters is how horribly the church behaved in that situation. And what matters is that the church did it "in the name of" their religion. So if the church misunderstood the bible in that case, then - as far as i'm concerned - the bible failed to communicate clearly.

==

Briefly, on the subject of the source of morality. I believe morality is innate. Much of morality is probably Darwinian. But regardless, I trust a person more if they're moral because they know in their hearts that being moral is the right thing to do, then I trust a person who is moral because they're afraid of god's punishment.

So you have read the Bible then, and consider yourself having a good grasp of it? I could put you through a test then?

I suspect you are more fluent in the bible than I am. Again, that misses the point. In the end, all I really care about is how scripture influences people's behaviors. And from that perspective, I think Abrahamic scripture has almost always done more harm than good.

 

[nPeace]

I have not read the entire bible, but I've read large chunks of it. (FWIW, I have slogged through the entire Quran.)

But I think you're missing my point.

I consider the bible and quran to be important works of historical fiction. What's important to me is how these books have impacted people in the past, and how they continue to impact people today.

From that perspective, your accusation of hearsay doesn't make sense. For example, the fact that the church banned condoms in Africa is an example of how the bible has influenced behavior. Now you might tell me that - in your opinion - the church misinterpreted the bible. Perhaps you'd be right. But it doesn't matter if you're right. What matters is how horribly the church behaved in that situation. And what matters is that the church did it "in the name of" their religion. So if the church misunderstood the bible in that case, then - as far as i'm concerned - the bible failed to communicate clearly.

==

Briefly, on the subject of the source of morality. I believe morality is innate. Much of morality is probably Darwinian. But regardless, I trust a person more if they're moral because they know in their hearts that being moral is the right thing to do, then I trust a person who is moral because they're afraid of god's punishment.



I suspect you are more fluent in the bible than I am. Again, that misses the point. In the end, all I really care about is how scripture influences people's behaviors. And from that perspective, I think Abrahamic scripture has almost always done more harm than good.

Interesting... Okay. So I want very much to understand you, and not miss your point. So let me take a step back, and proceed slowly.

You said, quote....
What's important to me is how these books have impacted people in the past, and how they continue to impact people today.
...unquote.

You said, quote....
For example, the fact that the church banned condoms in Africa is an example of how the bible has influenced behavior. Now you might tell me that - in your opinion - the church misinterpreted the bible. Perhaps you'd be right. But it doesn't matter if you're right. What matters is how horribly the church behaved in that situation. And what matters is that the church did it "in the name of" their religion. So if the church misunderstood the bible in that case, then - as far as i'm concerned - the bible failed to communicate clearly.
...unquote.

So I am using your words explicitly.
Here are a few questions.
a. Do you determine that someone is doing something in the name of their religion by their actions only, or if they say something like, "I do this because My Holy book says A B C D?

b. Do you consider someone doing something (in the name of their religion - according to your answer for a), evidence that the books impacted them that way?

c. How do you determine whether someone is impacted by a book(s), or by their own personality, or mentality?

 

[paarsurrey]

What exactly do think I need to come clean about? I read the entire danged book. I understand the claim that there is often a broader context than what's in an individual verse. And I'll even tell you I agree with that much.

But what you seem to be ignoring is cognitive science. What you seem to be ignoring more specifically is the effect of the unending repetition in the book. You haven't spoken to the fact that the Quran bashes non-Muslims over and over and over and over again ad nauseam.

"Quran bashes non-Muslims over and over and over and over again". Unquote.

Quran expressed reality, there is no bashing of non-Muslims in Quran. Just quote one verse of Quran,not many, if one has read Quran from cover to cover. Please give also the verses in the context to prove one's point of view. If one doesn't do it, then one is just copy/pasting from some website which is opposing Quran/Islam/Muhammad, not from one's own experience of Quran.

Regards

 

[icehorse]

"Quran bashes non-Muslims over and over and over and over again". Unquote.

Quran expressed reality, there is no bashing of non-Muslims in Quran. Just quote one verse of Quran,not many, if one has read Quran from cover to cover. Please give also the verses in the context to prove one's point of view. If one doesn't do it, then one is just copy/pasting from some website which is opposing Quran/Islam/Muhammad, not from one's own experience of Quran.

Regards

Hi paarsurrey,

I hope you are well. Several points:

1 - I have read the Quran from cover to cover. I hope you are not saying that I'm lying about this

2 - The website I linked to did a lot of work compiling a list of over 500 times the Quran is intolerant towards nonMuslims. Our entire society is built on people sharing each other's work. There is no need for me to compile my own list. I spot checked their list and the examples all seemed familiar to me.

3 - From the perspective of cognitive science, I don't need to discuss the context for each of these 500+ verses. The fact that there ARE 500+ verses is sufficient to convey a single message. That message is that Muslims should be intolerant of nonMuslims. This is one reason why I think the Quran is a bad book.

 

[icehorse]

So I am using your words explicitly.
Here are a few questions.
a. Do you determine that someone is doing something in the name of their religion by their actions only, or if they say something like, "I do this because My Holy book says A B C D?

b. Do you consider someone doing something (in the name of their religion - according to your answer for a), evidence that the books impacted them that way?

c. How do you determine whether someone is impacted by a book(s), or by their own personality, or mentality?

Answer a: In the case of the church's stance on condoms, I am relying on what official spokesmen for the church said. In some cases these pronouncements come from the pope himself.

Answer b: If I understand your question correctly then I would say that I try to take people at their word. For example if a religious person says something like "You should not do that because the bible says not to", then I will trust that they are acting based on what the bible taught them.

Answer c: In matters such as this I tend to be concerned only with trends. For example, in the US there are many Christians who harass biology teachers in an attempt to stop them from teaching evolution. I'm not terribly interested in what's driving these Christians on an individual basis, although that's probably interesting. Instead, I believe it's more than fair for me to conclude something like "many Christians trust the bible more than they trust science, and they demonstrate this by harassing biology teachers".

And it doesn't matter to me that not ALL christians dislike evolution. Enough of them harass teachers that they are having a measurable impact on how biology teachers behave. From this perspective I think it's fair for me to say that Christianity is having a negative impact on teaching our children critical thinking skills.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
"Quran bashes non-Muslims over and over and over and over again". Unquote.

Quran expressed reality, there is no bashing of non-Muslims in Quran. Just quote one verse of Quran,not many, if one has read Quran from cover to cover. Please give also the verses in the context to prove one's point of view. If one doesn't do it, then one is just copy/pasting from some website which is opposing Quran/Islam/Muhammad, not from one's own experience of Quran.

Hi paarsurrey,

I hope you are well. Several points:

1 - I have read the Quran from cover to cover. I hope you are not saying that I'm lying about this

2 - The website I linked to did a lot of work compiling a list of over 500 times the Quran is intolerant towards nonMuslims. Our entire society is built on people sharing each other's work. There is no need for me to compile my own list. I spot checked their list and the examples all seemed familiar to me.

3 - From the perspective of cognitive science, I don't need to discuss the context for each of these 500+ verses. The fact that there ARE 500+ verses is sufficient to convey a single message. That message is that Muslims should be intolerant of nonMuslims. This is one reason why I think the Quran is a bad book.

No, I won't say it.
Quran says that G-d mentions important points mentioned in it in different paraphrases so that the issue is settled in unequivocal manner, if one is sincere.
Most of the important points become clear in the context verses and or in the chapter or in the whole book.
If one quotes the verse with the context verses one will get to know the issue resolved. One did not do that. Right, please?
Now please just quote one verse of Quran with the verses in the context, and one will see it happen. Later, one by one the other verses may also be examined. Right, please?

Regards

 

[nPeace]

Answer a: In the case of the church's stance on condoms, I am relying on what official spokesmen for the church said. In some cases these pronouncements come from the pope himself.

Answer b: If I understand your question correctly then I would say that I try to take people at their word. For example if a religious person says something like "You should not do that because the bible says not to", then I will trust that they are acting based on what the bible taught them.

Answer c: In matters such as this I tend to be concerned only with trends. For example, in the US there are many Christians who harass biology teachers in an attempt to stop them from teaching evolution. I'm not terribly interested in what's driving these Christians on an individual basis, although that's probably interesting. Instead, I believe it's more than fair for me to conclude something like "many Christians trust the bible more than they trust science, and they demonstrate this by harassing biology teachers".

And it doesn't matter to me that not ALL christians dislike evolution. Enough of them harass teachers that they are having a measurable impact on how biology teachers behave. From this perspective I think it's fair for me to say that Christianity is having a negative impact on teaching our children critical thinking skills.

Thanks. I hope I am getting you clearly. Clarify if I am not please.
I'll highlight the main parts in red, and use font style.
You say quote...
Answer a: In the case of the church's stance on condoms, I am relying on what official spokesmen for the church said. In some cases these pronouncements come from the pope himself.

Answer b: If I understand your question correctly then I would say that I try to take people at their word. For example if a religious person says something like "You should not do that because the bible says not to", then I will trust that they are acting based on what the bible taught them.

Answer c: In matters such as this I tend to be concerned only with trends. For example, in the US there are many Christians who harass biology teachers in an attempt to stop them from teaching evolution. I'm not terribly interested in what's driving these Christians on an individual basis, although that's probably interesting. Instead, I believe it's more than fair for me to conclude something like "many Christians trust the bible more than they trust science, and they demonstrate this by harassing biology teachers".

That does not seem to harmonize with your previous statements.

What's important to me is how these books have impacted people in the past, and how they continue to impact people today.

Firstly. It seems to me that one who is interested in how these books impacted people in the past, would look at people in the past. What past are you thinking of - all the past, or from a particular period?

Secondly. It seems to me that one who is interested in how these books impacts people today would want to first be familiar with the message of the Bible, and not just what the spokesperson(s) of the religion dictates.

Let me give a classic example.
Religion: Disciples of Christ
Leader: Jim Jones
How did Jones become a religious leader?
Jones was able to launch his own church, which changed names until it became the Peoples Temple Christian Church Full Gospel. The Peoples Temple was initially launched as an inter-racial mission.
Jones encouraged his following to commit mass suicide.

Would you say Jones was impacted by the Bible, or was he following his own mental paranoia? But then, how would you know if he was impacted by the Bible's message, if you are not familiar with it.

You said it yourself. Quote... I am relying on what official spokesmen for the church said. Unquote. Quote... I try to take people at their word. Unquote. Quote... I tend to be concerned only with trends. Unquote.

The Catholic church not only seeks to ban condoms, the also act as political heads. They were involved in torturing, raping, and murdering whom they deemed heretics. Many of their members - about 3,000 priests - are accused of raping girls and boys, some as young as 3 years old.
Were they impacted by the Bible to do these things?

Spoiler: The Bible impacts positively actions

We have heard the saying over and over again, even from high officials, "strong families strong communities".
How are strong families built?
I could create a whole page of links, that from my knowledge of the Bible, all lead to one answer - principles found in the #1 best seller - the Bible, which encourages a key ingredient in happy family life.
Building Strong Families

From your own testimony, it seems clear to me that you don't care if people are frauds and claim to represent what they really don't., you would be willing to condemn the Bible, and God, regardless.
Would you take that same position, if your family or friends were involve, or another entity?
Say for example...
Someone came to your home, claiming to represent company X.
They rip you off, and you found out later that the company knows nothing about that individual, would you take a stance of condemning the company for not preventing a criminal coming to you home, robbing you?
One thing I am sure about, you would learn your lesson, and be more vigilant in making certain you can identify a true representative of the company.

I have never heard of anyone calling the police station, and making a complaint, that they were just robbed by two guys in police uniform, therefore the police force needs to go back to school, and learn how to do a proper job... unless they were loco.

There are vigilante cops, who say they are acting in the name of the law, and they execute - I'm using a gentle expression, but really, we know they murder people, "in the name of the law".
Anyone can take up a weapon and kill someone, and claim they do it in the name of the law.
We don't turn and blame the law, but we do, when it comes to the Bible.

I think an open-minded, and reasonable person, would apply the same logic to the Bible, and religion, as they do to any entity. What do you say?

Could you also elaborate on this please.

I think it's fair for me to say that Christianity is having a negative impact on teaching our children critical thinking skills.

What do you mean by "having a negative impact on teaching our children critical thinking skills" exactly?

 

[icehorse]

Firstly. It seems to me that one who is interested in how these books impacted people in the past, would look at people in the past. What past are you thinking of - all the past, or from a particular period?

I think that the histories of Christianity and Islam are both littered with atrocities done "in the name of" the faith. For now I'll propose that we should focus on recent or current events.

Would you say Jones was impacted by the Bible, or was he following his own mental paranoia? But then, how would you know if he was impacted by the Bible's message, if you are not familiar with it.

I've granted you that you're *probably* more familiar with the bible than I am. That does not mean I'm ignorant when it comes to the bible. But you must agree that if you live "in the west" you probably have been exposed to the bible throughout your entire life. I know I have been.

As far as Jones goes, you're bringing up an outlier. That's okay I suppose, but I'm more worried about bigger trends, not extreme outliers.

The Catholic church not only seeks to ban condoms, the also act as political heads. They were involved in torturing, raping, and murdering whom they deemed heretics. Many of their members - about 3,000 priests - are accused of raping girls and boys, some as young as 3 years old.
Were they impacted by the Bible to do these things?

Probably they were, but I'd need to know more about the specific cases you're mentioning. One thing I can say however is that the church's stance on celibacy in the priesthood has proven to be a real problem over the centuries.

From your own testimony, it seems clear to me that you don't care if people are frauds and claim to represent what they really don't., you would be willing to condemn the Bible, and God, regardless.

You're testing my equanimity here

I don't think that the pope is a fraud. Nor do I think that the 1000's of christians in the US who harass biology teachers are frauds. Do you?

I think an open-minded, and reasonable person, would apply the same logic to the Bible, and religion, as they do to any entity. What do you say?

I think I've answered this question in this post, but I'll rephrase it a bit: I'm not judging religions and their scriptures by extremists. I'm judging them by common behaviors. Your analogy to vigilante cops doesn't really fit as a response to what I'm saying, because again, Jim Jones and vigilante cops are outliers, and I'm not considering outliers in my analysis.

What do you mean by "having a negative impact on teaching our children critical thinking skills" exactly?

This is starting to feel a bit like I'm being sea-lioned but...

For example, the christians who are harassing biology teachers *tend* to endorse the idea that intelligent design and/or "creation science" ought to be taught side by side with evolution. The problem with that is that neither ID or "creation science" are actually science, and to suggest they should be compared to actual science is to commit a fundamental category error. And I don't think these IDers are stupid, I believe they know darned well what they're doing. This sort of activism runs squarely in opposition to critical thinking.

 

[nPeace]

Thanks again.

I think that the histories of Christianity and Islam are both littered with atrocities done "in the name of" the faith. For now I'll propose that we should focus on recent or current events.

So, since you say Christianity, I think you are thinking about past, relating to the past few centuries after the late second century, when apostate Christianity flourished after its birth a few years earlier.

I've granted you that you're *probably* more familiar with the bible than I am. That does not mean I'm ignorant when it comes to the bible. But you must agree that if you live "in the west" you probably have been exposed to the bible throughout your entire life. I know I have been.

Well, I wouldn't agree that "probably" is a suitable word to use, since you admitted that you haven't read the entire Bible, nor studied it. As regard if you are ignorant when it comes to the Bible, I can't know one way or another - that's left to be seen, but from my experience, people who haven't studied the Bible from front to back, and back, are usually ignorant about its overall content, and message.

As far as Jones goes, you're bringing up an outlier. That's okay I suppose, but I'm more worried about bigger trends, not extreme outliers.

Why do you consider Jones an outlier?
How about this guy then. David Berg?

Probably they were, but I'd need to know more about the specific cases you're mentioning. One thing I can say however is that the church's stance on celibacy in the priesthood has proven to be a real problem over the centuries.

What? Where have you been living? Or maybe you are quite young, or don't like history very much.
Have you not read about the inquisitions and crusades.
There. I linked them. You can read about the rape cases here, but I am not sure of its accuracy. It's Wikipedia though.

I hope you are not suggesting that their stance on celibacy had anything to do with it though, otherwise I hope you have an explanation for why so many married men, and sexually active men and women do the same thing - rape little children, I mean.

You're testing my equanimity here

Why? Maybe you need to get your wife give you a massage. It may be that you are a bit tense, and there may be a few knots, here and there.
There is no need to get hot. Try turning on the fan, and see if that helps.
You're talking to nPeace here. There is no need to take offense at what I say. I'm one of the most peaceful guys there is. As Mr. Trump would say, "Believe me. Believe me."

My words are soft, don't mind they look hard. That's only to make sure I keep your attention, and you don't fall asleep on me.

I don't think that the pope is a fraud. Nor do I think that the 1000's of christians in the US who harass biology teachers are frauds. Do you?

You really want an honest answer? Yes, I do. 99% of the thousands are, if not all.

I think I've answered this question in this post, but I'll rephrase it a bit: I'm not judging religions and their scriptures by extremists. I'm judging them by common behaviors. Your analogy to vigilante cops doesn't really fit as a response to what I'm saying, because again, Jim Jones and vigilante cops are outliers, and I'm not considering outliers in my analysis.

Thanks. Now you've put me in trouble.
What's an outlier to you... how do you determine who is?

This is starting to feel a bit like I'm being sea-lioned but...

Don't feel that way, please. What do you mean?

For example, the christians who are harassing biology teachers *tend* to endorse the idea that intelligent design and/or "creation science" ought to be taught side by side with evolution. The problem with that is that neither ID or "creation science" are actually science, and to suggest they should be compared to actual science is to commit a fundamental category error. And I don't think these IDers are stupid, I believe they know darned well what they're doing. This sort of activism runs squarely in opposition to critical thinking.

You haven't explained "having a negative impact on teaching our children critical thinking skills".
At least I don't think you have. Especially the "critical thinking skills" part.

 

[icehorse]

So, since you say Christianity, I think you are thinking about past, relating to the past few centuries after the late second century, when apostate Christianity flourished after its birth a few years earlier.

Another incorrect guess on your part. Life is too short for guessing games, respectfully, please stop guessing.

What? Where have you been living? Or maybe you are quite young, or don't like history very much.

Up to this point we've been having a respectful conversation. When you start into this sort of response I will lose interest. If you have good arguments, then you should have no reason for this sort of response.

Why? Maybe you need to get your wife give you a massage. It may be that you are a bit tense, and there may be a few knots, here and there.
There is no need to get hot. Try turning on the fan, and see if that helps.

Again, when you resort to this sort of response it indicates to me that your arguments must not stand of their own merit.

You really want an honest answer? Yes, I do. 99% of the thousands are, if not all.

I have been and will continue to be honest with you. I don't have time for liars. Okay, so correct me if I misunderstand you, but are you saying you believe that most of the christians who harass biology teachers are frauds?

If so, can you explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

What's an outlier to you... how do you determine who is?

An outlier is an idea from statistics (which I suspect you know). Outliers represent only the far extremes of distribution curves. We can say Jones was an outlier because his views were so unique. We can say that vigilante cops are outliers, again, because in comparison to the total number of cops they are so small in number.

There is nothing wrong with studying outliers, but for conversations like this I think that they muddy the waters and add no value.

You haven't explained "having a negative impact on teaching our children critical thinking skills".
At least I don't think you have. Especially the "critical thinking skills" part.

I believe I have, and I'd bet most of the folks reading this thread understand my explanation.

 

[Niblo]

Interesting. Thank you.
However, this sounds like something that can be stretched to suit. What is an attack? Is not being Muslim an excuse for genocide? The Yazidis found it so. Is being the wrong kind if Muslim an attack? The endless sectarian warfare that Muslims love so much indiçates that it is taken to be so.

There is never an excuse for genocide.

Some years ago a hundred and twenty-six Islamic scholars signed an open letter to Al-Baghdadi, then leader of ISIS. This letter states (inter alia):

‘You fought the Yazidis under the banner of jihad but they neither fought you nor Muslims. You considered them satanists and gave them the choice to either be killed or be forced into Islam. You killed hundreds of them and buried them in mass graves. You caused the death and suffering of hundreds of others. Had it not been for American and Kurdish intervention, tens of thousands of their men, women, children and elderly would have been killed. These are all abominable crimes.’ (‘Open Letter to Dr. Ibrahim Awwad Al-Badri, alias ‘Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi’).

In your first post you write that Muslims ‘follow a religion that explicitly calls for the extermination of non-muslims.’ The burden of proof rest with the one making the accusation. Please provide your evidence.

 

[nPeace]

Another incorrect guess on your part. Life is too short for guessing games, respectfully, please stop guessing.

Another? Where did I start?
I haven't made any guess at all.
I am trying to understand you, and asking you for clarification.
If you make yourself clear, that would make it easy for me. Rather than you accuse me wrongfully.

Up to this point we've been having a respectful conversation. When you start into this sort of response I will lose interest. If you have good arguments, then you should have no reason for this sort of response.

I realized there was a little tenseness before this, but I don't see any disrespect anywhere, and I certainly am not being disrespectful to you.
I have had conversations with persons, outside of, and on these forums, where there were a few "light moments", and no one got uptight, and offended. Well, actually a few did...
That normally happens when one person realizes that the counter arguments seem to be preventing things from falling in their favor.

Again, when you resort to this sort of response it indicates to me that your arguments must not stand of their own merit.

Hey, lighten up. No ones attacking you.

No argument was being made here. All of what I said was in response to your saying Quote... "You're testing my equanimity here." Unquote.
All I am trying to do, is ease some of the tension, but it doesn't seem to be working.

I have been and will continue to be honest with you. I don't have time for liars.

You really want an honest answer? Yes, I do. 99% of the thousands are, if not all.

Even a light response like that, and...? Okay. I get the picture now.
It's good that you are honest.

Okay, so correct me if I misunderstand you, but are you saying you believe that most of the christians who harass biology teachers are frauds?

If so, can you explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

You have not misunderstood me. This is partly what I was trying to show you earlier.

Most of those who say they are Christians are frauds. How does one arrive at such a conclusion? By using the same thing they claim to represent.
Let me explain.

If you take your mind back to the example I used of the company, and the fraud that robbed you.
When you go through the company, it allows you to use it as a gauge, to determine who is legit - who works at the company, from who doesn't - the one who claims to work for the company.

In the same way, the Bible identifies what is involved in becoming a follower of Christ, so if one claims to be, but does not qualify as such, they are merely just making claims.
The entire Bible, makes that distinction. One such place is John 8 where, in verse 44, Jesus even said to those who claimed otherwise...
New International Version
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Many say they represent the Bible, and Christianity. If one were to put a few questions to those individuals, it would quickly become evident that they don't know much about "the company they claim to work for".

An outlier is an idea from statistics (which I suspect you know). Outliers represent only the far extremes of distribution curves. We can say Jones was an outlier because his views were so unique. We can say that vigilante cops are outliers, again, because in comparison to the total number of cops they are so small in number.

There is nothing wrong with studying outliers, but for conversations like this I think that they muddy the waters and add no value.

I don't understand you argument then, if you are excluding outliers..., because I know of Muslims who do not, and have not gone around chopping off heads, or executing who they consider "opponents of Allah", and many of both men and women, live and work peacefully in communities.

Even officials try to make a distinction between what they term radical, or extremist Muslims, from regular Muslims.
So when you say you exclude outliers, would that not mean you exclude radicals, and therefore to say that their proponents have a terrible history, would be false?

The same for Christians... if for example, the Children of God movement, and the Peoples Temple movement, considered as cults by many, are considered outliers by you, because of having, Quote... "views that are so unique" Unquote, then how do we decide who are outliers?
Some people view religious movements as cults for various reasons, even though their information about these religions are not always accurate.
Some view the Mormons as a cult, and extreme, others view the Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult and extreme, others view evangelical movements as extreme. Some place all in the same bracket, and on and on.

People's views differ. Whose views do we decide should determine the true representation of the group - in this case Christianity?

I believe I have, and I'd bet most of the folks reading this thread understand my explanation.

I believe you haven't. Most folks huh. Would most of those folk be those who take your side of complaining that, Quote... "neither ID or "creation science" are actually science, and to suggest they should be compared to actual science is to commit a fundamental category error." Unquote.

Are you saying that you don't care if I understand, even though I am the one you are having this conversation with, and have asked you to clarify where I don't understand?
Are you the same person that made an allegation that I was guessing, and told me not to do so?
If that's how you operate, and you feel comfortable doing so, I won't try to change that.

I'll ask someone to verify though, to be sure.
@Hockeycowboy, could you look at the last paragraph of Post #114, and tell me if icehorse has explained what was meant by "having a negative impact on teaching our children critical thinking skills" exactly, especially the part about "critical thinking skills". Thanks.

 

[icehorse]

That normally happens when one person realizes that the counter arguments seem to be preventing things from falling in their favor.

In my experience, it's really hard to convey humor in discussions like this. The only approach that seems relatively safe is self-deprecating humor. Sadly, these forum discussions are rife with ad hominem attacks, so given that no one here is on par with Andy Borowitz attempts at non-self-deprecating humor usually fall flat. In my experience.

Many say they represent the Bible, and Christianity. If one were to put a few questions to those individuals, it would quickly become evident that they don't know much about "the company they claim to work for".

I usually frame questions like this by thinking of statistical Bell curve distributions. If that's not clear, I can elaborate. Assuming for now that I can use statistical framing, I would say that in the US, the number of christians who do not believe in evolution is significant. Put another way, they are not statistical outliers.

Given that, how is an atheist like me supposed to know that you @nPeace - an individual - have the "correct" view on christianity and that the large group of non-evolutionists have it "wrong"?

Of course it's true that christianity is not monolithic and there are many variations on a theme. But that defense does not stand up to statistics. A statistically significant number of christians have not only believed, but BEHAVED in support of:

- banning condoms in AIDs ridden Africa
- giving cover to widespread pedophilia
- harassing biology teachers
- supporting corporal punishment in schools
- limiting educational opportunities for women in developing countries
- supporting population explosion
- supporting homophobia

And on and on.

If I understand your argument correctly, are you telling me that they've all got it wrong, and you've got it right? Well I can say that if you agree with me that those behaviors above are horrible, then on those points we're in agreement. If I've understood you so far, then it seems to me that you need to label yourself differently. There is probably a denomination of christians who feel as you do and who disagree with the kinds of bad behaviors I listed above.

Even officials try to make a distinction between what they term radical, or extremist Muslims, from regular Muslims.
So when you say you exclude outliers, would that not mean you exclude radicals, and therefore to say that their proponents have a terrible history, would be false?

A lot of people worry about Islamic terrorism. While It think it's cause for concern, it's not high on my list. When it comes to Islam, my primary concern is that - as an ideology - its core tenets run counter to modern secular society. And the number of Muslims who believe in Islam's theocratic approach to running society is - again - statistically significant. It's probably more than half of the world's Muslims.

==

As for my claim concerning christianity fighting against the teaching of critical thinking, I will try again:

ID and "creation science" are NOT science topics. They are religious topics masquerading as science topics. All of those christians (a statistically significant number), who work to have ID and CS taught along side biology are acting in direct opposition to honesty and logic. And their goal is to undermine honesty and logic by teaching children that ID and CS are science. These beliefs are religious, not scientific. Can you see how these ID and CS promoting activities are in opposition to critical thinking?

I know that we're stuck with religion. Sad, but true. But we do not have to allow the religious to get away with conflating their religious ideas with science.

 

[icehorse]

paarsurrey said: ↑
"Quran bashes non-Muslims over and over and over and over again". Unquote.

Quran expressed reality, there is no bashing of non-Muslims in Quran. Just quote one verse of Quran,not many, if one has read Quran from cover to cover. Please give also the verses in the context to prove one's point of view. If one doesn't do it, then one is just copy/pasting from some website which is opposing Quran/Islam/Muhammad, not from one's own experience of Quran.

No, I won't say it.
Quran says that G-d mentions important points mentioned in it in different paraphrases so that the issue is settled in unequivocal manner, if one is sincere.
Most of the important points become clear in the context verses and or in the chapter or in the whole book.
If one quotes the verse with the context verses one will get to know the issue resolved. One did not do that. Right, please?
Now please just quote one verse of Quran with the verses in the context, and one will see it happen. Later, one by one the other verses may also be examined. Right, please?

Regards

Hi paarsurrey,

For the sake of this discussion, I'll grant you that perhaps every time the Quran preaches intolerance towards nonmuslims, there is a specific context. So we could simplify the situation and make a list of those 500+ times the book is intolerant:

nonMuslims are bad in situation #1, nonMuslims are bad in situation #2, nonMuslims are bad in situation #3, nonMuslims are bad in situation #4, nonMuslims are bad in situation #5, nonMuslims are bad in situation #6, nonMuslims are bad in situation #7, nonMuslims are bad in situation #8, nonMuslims are bad in situation #9, nonMuslims are bad in situation #10, nonMuslims are bad in situation #11, ...

nonMuslims are bad in situation #501, nonMuslims are bad in situation #502...

Human children learn how to survive in the world by observing the world and seeing patterns. When a child learns about dangerous things, they learn one experience at a time. A knife can cut me in this situation, a knife can cut me in this other situation, a knife can cut me in yet another situation. Pretty soon the child makes a generalization that "knives can cut me".

This is the problem I'm discussing with the book. Any human who reads the Quran ABSOLUTELY WILL come away with the message that Muslims should be intolerant of nonMuslims. Human brains WILL make this generalization. That's how human brains work.

It is a HUGE problem that the Quran criticizes nonMuslims over 500 times.