• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Isn't anti-religion just as hateful as they make religion out to be?

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is but one example of where science has been used to justify horrible and inhumane acts.

That doesn't really make sense to me.

I have heard recurrently that religion isn't responsible for what people does with it, and somewhat less often (as now) that, apparently, science is.

Shouldn't it be the other way around - since, after all, science does not deal with goals and motivations while religion does?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
That doesn't really make sense to me.

I have heard recurrently that religion isn't responsible for what people does with it, and somewhat less often (as now) that, apparently, science is.

Shouldn't it be the other way around - since, after all, science does not deal with goals and motivations while religion does?
*sigh*
No, I've said a few times on this thread it doesn't matter what people use, they will use whatever they can, and whatever is closest in reach to justify hatred. I used science as an example because people are scared of religion, but hardly ever does anyone ever mention the fact it is science that produced enough bombs to wipe out all life on the planet.
 

Ultimatum

Classical Liberal
I'm afraid every Muslim I've talked to about it, in real life, thinks ISIS is a piece of **** who are tarnishing their religion. I'm afraid the facts are, the Quran is far less aggressive than the Bible, as quite often the verses people point to "prove" how "blood thirsty" it is, when taken in full context, very frequently are cases of defense (this being unlike the Bible in which god, on multiple occasions, demanded aggression, invasion, and genocide). I'm also afraid that science that has been used to justify atrocities throughout the world, including here in America. I'm afraid people will latch onto whatever it is they want to to justify their hatred and violence. Even if they have to make up some lame excuse (which is pretty much all the time), they will find a way to justify their violence. Religion not required.

"I'm afraid every Muslim I've talked to about it, in real life, thinks ISIS is a piece of **** who are tarnishing their religion."

This is understandable-- why on earth would you collectively voice a support for a despised group?

"I'm afraid the facts are, the Quran is far less aggressive than the Bible, as quite often the verses people point to "prove" how "blood thirsty" it is, when taken in full context, very frequently are cases of defense (this being unlike the Bible in which god, on multiple occasions, demanded aggression, invasion, and genocide)."

The reason that the Abrahamic adherents' cause is not being tarnished is because that it was the god that caused these supposed deaths. I certainly don't believe in this god so to me: these deaths never happen.
Flipping the coin, the Islamic adherents' cause is being tarnished because their cause source calls them to bring death upon fellow humans. I certainly can see these deaths all the time, as evidenced by the media, so the publics' eye sees this ideological cause as a threat to their safety. I'm afraid, @ShadowWolf, that the Muslims you talked to either used a bit of taqqiya or those particular Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence.
You talk about defensive warring, but let us look at some Koranic verses of violence, shall we?

1. Quran (2:191-193)
And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

This verse is not taken out of context and certainly doesn't call for defensive warring, but offensive offensives.

2. Quran (2:244)
Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.

Self explanatory.

Instead of continuing the format, I will list more verses for you to reference and read whenever you wish.

Quran (66:9)
Quran (48:29)
Quran (21:44)
Quran (47:3-4)

I'm also afraid that science that has been used to justify atrocities throughout the world, including here in America. I'm afraid people will latch onto whatever it is they want to to justify their hatred and violence. Even if they have to make up some lame excuse (which is pretty much all the time), they will find a way to justify their violence. Religion not required.

What America has done recently is surely horrid. And certainly an atrocity to Americans-- which they accept to be an atrocity. But let us remember that America did not do this, but the American corporate lobbyist and politician did this and those that allowed these acts to happen should be held accountable and prosecuted (which, by the way, Americans would also like to see). As you can see: these acts don't represent America's view. ISIS commits according to the Koran and represent TRUE Muslims' views.
I'm afraid that you are misinformed, Shadow Wolf. I hope this post helps.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
1. Quran (2:191-193)


This verse is not taken out of context

Yes it is.

and certainly doesn't call for defensive warring,

Yes it does.

but offensive offensives.

No it doesn't.

In fact, not only are those quotes taken out of context, they're almost fabrications, and not even representative of the verses as rendered in the place you link to, so I don't even know where you got the stuff you're quoting.

Here's the verses, more properly rendered, and in the proper context:

190. Fight in the cause of God
Those who fight you,
But do not transgress limits;

For God loveth not transgressors.

191. And slay them
Wherever ye catch them,
And turn them out
From where they have
Turned you out;
For tumult and oppression
Are worse than slaughter;

But fight them not
At the Sacred Mosque,
Unless they (first)
Fight you there;
But if they fight you,
Slay them.

Such is the reward
Of those who suppress faith.

192. But if they cease,
God is Oft-forgiving,
Most Merciful.

193. And fight them on
Until there is no more
Tumult or oppression,

And there prevail
Justice and faith in God;
But if they cease,
Let there be no hostility
Except to those
Who practise oppression.


194. The prohibited month
For the prohibited month,—
And so for all things prohibited,—
There is the law of equality.
If then any one transgresses
The prohibition against you,
Transgress ye likewise
Against him.

But fear God, and know
That God is with those
Who restrain themselves.
 
But if you take away religion, they will just find something else to latch onto. Money and profit is another motivator that has caused much suffering and death, and is perhaps on par, if not in excess, of religion.
The other point was showing that even anti-theist movements can butcher and slaughter people on the same scale as religious ones.

Non religious millenarian movements (communism, Naziism) tend to have been more violent than religious millenarian movements. Any utopian ideology is problematic as any action can be justified in order to achieve such a utopia.

Nationalism has arguably been the biggest killer of all, yet patriotism is considered a virtue.

Also the extent to which 'religious' violence is actually primarily about religion is often overstated, an example would be the 30 years war.

the Muslims you talked to either used a bit of taqqiya or those particular Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence.
You talk about defensive warring, but let us look at some Koranic verses of violence, shall we?

1. Quran (2:191-193)



What America has done recently is surely horrid. And certainly an atrocity to Americans-- which they accept to be an atrocity. But let us remember that America did not do this, but the American corporate lobbyist and politician did this and those that allowed these acts to happen should be held accountable and prosecuted (which, by the way, Americans would also like to see). As you can see: these acts don't represent America's view. ISIS commits according to the Koran and represent TRUE Muslims' views.
I'm afraid that you are misinformed, Shadow Wolf. I hope this post helps.

Muslims mass practicing of taqqiya has to be the biggest anti-Islam myth in existence. I honestly doubt if most Muslims know what it means never mind actively using it to achieve some nefarious ends. It is tin foil hat level of paranoia.

Also the is no such thing as a 'TRUE Muslim', all religions are subjective and open to interpretation, there is no true Islam, just popular and less popular interpretations.

You judge ISIS to be 'true Muslims', but they are certainly a tiny minority sect in both modern and historical terms. Muslims were a minority in the Middle East for hundreds of years after taking control, there were not mass slaughters of infidels. I spend my time surrounded by Muslims, yet none of them has ever tried to kill me. Some are even friendly and kind to me:openmouth: Maybe they are all just bad Muslims though, or practicing taqqiya.

The only people who are extreme literalists are fanatics and those hostile to religions, most believers are much more nuanced (or commonly just not very knowledgable or interested).

Much as they like to think they are being authentic though, ISIS is an innovation, not a historical revival.

And saying 'America didn't do this, and its not representative', but collectively blaming Muslims for stuff they neither support nor believe to be part of the religion is more than a touch hypocritical.
 

serp777

Well-Known Member
The difference is that the anti religious people don't slaughter others or behead or commit blatant murder. Not all muslim are terrorists or apart of murderous organizations, but you don't see atheists or agnostics starting a group to behead unbelievers or suicide bomb a school in the name of their beliefs. Religion is inherently divisive and causes conflict because people believe that people of other faiths are infidels. A good example is the isreali palestinian conflict--the main issue is that the Jews took over a part of the land that was previously controlled by Muslims. its the fact that its the Jews vs the Muslims that causes the problem.

One good argument from Christopher hitchens was that religion is the only thing that makes good people do bad things.
 

Looncall

Well-Known Member
For example, I saw a post elsewhere that said something about separating Islam from the planet in response to ISIS. You can imagine how my point that ISIS =! Islam went over. Further, in such contexts, the anti-religious hold to strict, old, and literal interpretation of the texts (ironically). Spreading this hate and ignorance, how are these movements ideogically any different?

If an ideology is clearly factually inaccurate and socially noxious, why would it not be a civic duty to oppose it? I do not see that hate comes into it.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
If an ideology is clearly factually inaccurate and socially noxious, why would it not be a civic duty to oppose it? I do not see that hate comes into it.

"Socially noxious" sounds like a phrase that comes from a place of hate, to me. Or at least hegemonic-type thinking.
 

Ultimatum

Classical Liberal
Yes it is.



Yes it does.



No it doesn't.

In fact, not only are those quotes taken out of context, they're almost fabrications, and not even representative of the verses as rendered in the place you link to, so I don't even know where you got the stuff you're quoting.

Here's the verses, more properly rendered, and in the proper context:

190. Fight in the cause of God
Those who fight you,
But do not transgress limits;

For God loveth not transgressors.

191. And slay them
Wherever ye catch them,
And turn them out
From where they have
Turned you out;
For tumult and oppression
Are worse than slaughter;

But fight them not
At the Sacred Mosque,
Unless they (first)
Fight you there;
But if they fight you,
Slay them.

Such is the reward
Of those who suppress faith.

192. But if they cease,
God is Oft-forgiving,
Most Merciful.

193. And fight them on
Until there is no more
Tumult or oppression,

And there prevail
Justice and faith in God;
But if they cease,
Let there be no hostility
Except to those
Who practise oppression.


194. The prohibited month
For the prohibited month,—
And so for all things prohibited,—
There is the law of equality.
If then any one transgresses
The prohibition against you,
Transgress ye likewise
Against him.

But fear God, and know
That God is with those
Who restrain themselves.

You say these quoteS are taken out of context, yet you only try to push forward positivity for one of them. Is there something I am missing?

Also, let's expand on the verse you quoted even more-- considering that context is so very important to you.
These verses take place when the Muslims and Mohammed were in Medina and were supposedly under attack by Meccans. But this is a common misconception. If you look at the historical context [SOURCE], they certainly were not under attack from the Meccans. This means that they used "defensive" violence even though there was no real threat to them. The passage, without historical context surely is justified by Muslims, but what many fail to take into account is the complete picture: not merely the passage itself..
 

Looncall

Well-Known Member
"Socially noxious" sounds like a phrase that comes from a place of hate, to me. Or at least hegemonic-type thinking.

Hi Riverwolf. Happy New Year to you.

Are all ideologies automatically deserving of respect?

Suppose, for a few concrete examples, an ideology or religion promoted slavery, or genocide, or mutilation of children, or human sacrifice, or inaccurate notions about how the world works? Why would one not have a duty to oppose it?

As far as I can see, one would not wish any of these to be promoted in any civilized society.
 

Ultimatum

Classical Liberal
Muslims mass practicing of taqqiya has to be the biggest anti-Islam myth in existence. I honestly doubt if most Muslims know what it means never mind actively using it to achieve some nefarious ends. It is tin foil hat level of paranoia.

I am with you on the fact that many Muslims would not know what kitman or taqiyya are. Perhaps this is because they don't read the Koran very often, or perhaps, even properly. Perhaps they have deluded themselves that there is no such thing. But, my friend, deception is a very real concept taught in the Koran to further the cause of Islam.

Also the is no such thing as a 'TRUE Muslim', all religions are subjective and open to interpretation, there is no true Islam, just popular and less popular interpretations.

A true Muslim is classed as an Islamic adherent who follows the Koranic words and works by example and performance. A Muslim that denies the art of Islamic deception, for example, is a developing Muslim who has evidently not learned the Koran's teachings.
On the subject of interpretations: all religions have these. I am merely talking about warring and deceiving. There is no interpretation on these teachings.

You judge ISIS to be 'true Muslims', but they are certainly a tiny minority sect in both modern and historical terms. Muslims were a minority in the Middle East for hundreds of years after taking control, there were not mass slaughters of infidels. I spend my time surrounded by Muslims, yet none of them has ever tried to kill me. Some are even friendly and kind to me:openmouth: Maybe they are all just bad Muslims though, or practicing taqqiya.

Majority =/= Truth
Minority =/= Falsehood

And listen, I do not not like Muslims. And I am certainly not scared of them warring on me.
What I am scared of is the complete teaching of the Koran and the acts of Mohammed-- anyone would agree with me. Perhaps ISIS do not do everything by the book (literally), but they further the cause of Islam by legitimated Koranic means.

The only people who are extreme literalists are fanatics and those hostile to religions, most believers are much more nuanced (or commonly just not very knowledgable or interested).

Extreme literalists? One would certainly be ignorant to NOT be a literalist..
It is important that you study each story and analyze each teaching carefully and accurately and in context. Otherwise, you are not a literalist and, in the case of Islam, are simply Muslim-ish.

Much as they like to think they are being authentic though, ISIS is an innovation, not a historical revival.

Want to back up that statement with some evidence?
Perhaps supply some proof?
Because that statement is not justifiable on its' own.

And saying 'America didn't do this, and its not representative', but collectively blaming Muslims for stuff they neither support nor believe to be part of the religion is more than a touch hypocritical.

I never collectively blamed Muslims! I blamed Islam which is in support of the Koranic teachings of progressing Islam.
Surely, I would be hypocritical if I had blamed all Muslims, but this is not the case. You are the hypocrite here.
 

serp777

Well-Known Member
Nice sound bite, but completely untrue. Spectacularly wrong to be honest.
Name something else? This isn't referring to a good person being forced to do something bad via blackmail or coercion. Its about good people, through their own free will and thinking, coming to the conclusion to do something like murder or suicide bombing because they believe they are pursuing the word of God.
 
Name something else? This isn't referring to a good person being forced to do something bad via blackmail or coercion. Its about good people, through their own free will and thinking, coming to the conclusion to do something like murder or suicide bombing because they believe they are pursuing the word of God.

Did you miss the 20th and 21st centuries?
 

serp777

Well-Known Member
Did you miss the 20th and 21st centuries?
Well im not that old, so i only got to experience 9 years in the 20th century, and, since you're seemingly not aware, we just got into the 15th year of the 21st century. That would mean I only experienced 11% of these two centuries; so yes basically and I bet you missed quite a bit too.
 
I am with you on the fact that many Muslims would not know what kitman or taqiyya are. Perhaps this is because they don't read the Koran very often, or perhaps, even properly. Perhaps they have deluded themselves that there is no such thing. But, my friend, deception is a very real concept taught in the Koran to further the cause of Islam.

Wow, Muslims can be deceptive in war. Just like every other society in history. Great deceptions in warfare are celebrated in all societies, those who do them are heroes.

A true Muslim is classed as an Islamic adherent who follows the Koranic words and works by example and performance. A Muslim that denies the art of Islamic deception, for example, is a developing Muslim who has evidently not learned the Koran's teachings.
On the subject of interpretations: all religions have these. I am merely talking about warring and deceiving. There is no interpretation on these teachings.

So unless you routinely lie to the kufr you are a 'developing Muslim'? Most Muslims don't think they are at war with non-Muslims, the West is doing its best to try to change that though.


Majority =/= Truth
Minority =/= Falsehood

And listen, I do not not like Muslims. And I am certainly not scared of them warring on me.
What I am scared of is the complete teaching of the Koran and the acts of Mohammed-- anyone would agree with me. Perhaps ISIS do not do everything by the book (literally), but they further the cause of Islam by legitimated Koranic means.

Means which are rejected by most Muslims including almost all major scholars.



Extreme literalists? One would certainly be ignorant to NOT be a literalist..
It is important that you study each story and analyze each teaching carefully and accurately and in context. Otherwise, you are not a literalist and, in the case of Islam, are simply Muslim-ish.

Good to know that you are the supreme arbiter of 'Muslimness' and have decided that most Muslims don't really meet the criteria of being real Muslims. Can't see how anyone could find that patronising.

Want to back up that statement with some evidence?
Perhaps supply some proof?
Because that statement is not justifiable on its' own.

As I said, Muslims were the minority in the 'Islamic World' for a very long time after the conquests. The earliest Muslims did not engage in mass slaughter of infidels simply because they were infidels. The earliest Muslims did not behave like ISIS, they coopted the institutions of the existing areas they captured and were more concerned with extracting tribute than installing a totalitarian theocracy.

I never collectively blamed Muslims! I blamed Islam which is in support of the Koranic teachings of progressing Islam.
Surely, I would be hypocritical if I had blamed all Muslims, but this is not the case. You are the hypocrite here.

It is quite comical that if Muslims don't behave in accordance with your normative assumption of what Muslims should do then it is them who are in the wrong. Islam is as Muslims decide it is, not what Europeans with limited understanding of what they are talking about think Muslims should be doing. It's like when economists blame the real world for not behaving in accordance with the theories they have created. It isn't them that's wrong, it's the world.
 
Last edited:
Well im not that old, so i only got to experience 9 years in the 20th century, and, since you're seemingly not aware, we just got into the 15th year of the 21st century. That would mean I only experienced 11% of these two centuries; so yes basically and I bet you missed quite a bit too.

ok, from the turn of the 20th C: Anarchist terrorism, nationalism, WW1, Communism, Fascism, Naziism, WW2, Cold War, anti-Communism, left wing urban guerrilla movements in Europe, liberal interventionism, etc.

None of these were religious, all had people committing atrocities and horrendous acts in the name of doing 'good' or improving the world.

To paraphrase someone (forgotten who) 'Murder done for reasons of evil is a statistical rarity in human history. Murder committed for noble reasons is the norm'.

Relevant to this topic is the following quote:

"In 1957 a book of profound significance was published by a former wartime British Army intelligence officer named Norman Cohn... The Pursuit of the Millennium, Revolutionary messianism in medieval and Reformation Europe and its bearing on modern totalitarian movements. It was to prove one of the most influential and important historical and political books of the twentieth century.

Its argument, as Cohn summarized in the foreword to his second edition, was that in the past “traditional beliefs about a future golden age or messianic kingdom became, in certain situations of mass disorientation and anxiety, the ideologies of popular movements of a peculiarly anarchic kind.” He said that these movements in the Middle Ages possessed a hidden continuity and integral resemblance to modern totalitarianism in all of the latters’ excesses and terror.

Now we witness the arrival of ISIL... which is the counterpart in our time of such a movement. There is nothing new in it (unless this is its predilection for decapitations). Reading Norman Cohn will tell you all about it.

He will also tell you that it is a phenomenon that will pass. It is in no way integral to the Islamic religion, any more than Nazism was to German nationalism, or Stalinism to Marxism. For modern Muslims of the Eastern Mediterranean it is surely a terrifying phenomenon, because this movement has erupted from within their own society itself.

Europeans have seen Nazi terror and mass murder grow within their own societies. So have Russians. Colonial America had a large experience of it – as Cohn points out – in the witch-hunts of Puritan New England. One might venture to say (as some have) that in today’s American security state, with its all-encompassing surveillance, use of courts of exception and Star Chambers, perpetual imprisonment, and secret torture, one detects a shadow of it. Thanks to Professor Cohn, we can know it when we se it – and will understand that it too passes"

The Millennium Threat - Printer Friendly Page - Columns - William PFAFF

The Cohn book is excellent, and will help show that violent millenarianism is not unique to Islam, Christianity has a long tradition too.

A 2nd book is The Bullet's Song: Romantic violence and utopia, by William Pfaff. Another excellent book that shows that violent millenarianism is not unique to religion either and documents a variety of 20th century secular movements.

Would strongly recommend them to anyone who wishes to gain a more rounded understanding of current events beyond the superficial and naive anti-religious/anti-Islam viewpoint.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
You say these quoteS are taken out of context, yet you only try to push forward positivity for one of them. Is there something I am missing?

The fact that you got one of them wrong, and for reasons that allow me to regard the others as highly likely to be wrong in the same ways.

Also, let's expand on the verse you quoted even more-- considering that context is so very important to you.
These verses take place when the Muslims and Mohammed were in Medina and were supposedly under attack by Meccans. But this is a common misconception. If you look at the historical context [SOURCE], they certainly were not under attack from the Meccans. This means that they used "defensive" violence even though there was no real threat to them. The passage, without historical context surely is justified by Muslims, but what many fail to take into account is the complete picture: not merely the passage itself..

Sorry, that source is not trustworthy.
 
Top