The Monopoly of Religious Believers

[Sees]

Unfortunately, what truth they contain is generally very trivial, and not a unique truth to religion, whereas the falsehoods generally constitute most of their core doctrines and teachings. Unfortunately, for a system of thought claiming universality, divine mandate, and/or enlightenment, containing any substantial degree of falsehood is like an onion that is partly rotted; a partly rotten onion is a just a rotten onion, and similarly, a partly false religion is just a false religion.

I used one of your posts for inspiration the other day. It was where some other poster and I mentioned religion without set, dogmatic truth-claims and you said that is more like art or something else. I thought it was a great way to put it

 

[Enai de a lukal]

To you. Not to me.

Within the relevant domain, they are trivial; you may find them noteworthy or significant, but the fact remains that the truths within any given religion are generally non-essential, non-core claims- for instance, geographical/historical facts within religious scriptures, practical/ethical maxims that are useful and reasonable, etc. The sorts of claims which distinguish a given religion- the claims that make that religion the religion it is, are almost universally false or probably false.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I used one of your posts for inspiration the other day. It was where some other poster and I mentioned religion without set, dogmatic truth-claims and you said that is more like art or something else. I thought it was a great way to put it

Thx

 

[monti]

Sorry I'm late to the party. Just wanted to clarify a common misconception that is also made here. The word Goy is not a Yiddishe word for an unclean heathen or some other nonsense. Its Hebrew for "nation." Colloquially, it means someone from one of the other nations. But the word itself is even used in Scriptures in reference to Israel.

Indeed it isn't. Yiddish is a fairly modern language, spoken by European Jews (c 9th century) than the Hebrew language of antiquity. Goy is a Hebrew word used as a disparaging term for one who is not a Jew.
Goy-im (plural) was also a term used towards Jews (European Jews) who were ignorant of the Jewish scriptures. It was also used towards gentiles who were classed (particularly by the Galilean zealots) as unclean and not worthy of life.
Whichever way or in which context one chooses to use this word it is still in the main a derogatory word usually aimed at none Jews.

 

[Tumah]

Indeed it isn't. Yiddish is a fairly modern language, spoken by European Jews (c 9th century) than the Hebrew language of antiquity. Goy is a Hebrew word used as a disparaging term for one who is not a Jew.
Goy-im (plural) was also a term used towards Jews (European Jews) who were ignorant of the Jewish scriptures. It was also used towards gentiles who were classed (particularly by the Galilean zealots) as unclean and not worthy of life.
Whichever way or in which context one chooses to use this word it is still in the main a derogatory word usually aimed at none Jews.

Deut. 4:34, "...to come to take a nation (Goy) from among a nation (Goy) with signs and wonders..."

Here you have a verse that uses the word Goy for both Israel and the Egyptians. A goy is simply a non-Jew. Any Jewish person you've heard using it as a pejorative, probably doesn't speak Yiddish or has a limited background in Judaism. It simply doesn't.

Your comment regarding Galilean Zealots suggests to me that you frequent anti-semitic websites. Those are the type of fabrications one normally expects from there.

 

[monti]

Your comment regarding Galilean Zealots suggests to me that you frequent anti-semitic websites. Those are the type of fabrications one normally expects from there.

Well then your suggestion would be totally incorrect and I find your suggestion about me to be quite offensive.. I am not anti any nation. I am anti anyone who decides that because a god say so, they want to kill me.


It is a fact that the heartland of the zealots was Galilee. As is South Armagh was described as "Bandit Country" of Ireland the heartland IRA.
The Zealots, hated just about everyone who was not a FULL Jew. So let's cut this bigoted nonsense and stick to the topic and keep those suggestion to yourself where I am concerned.
Believers believe have the monopoly on morals, and ethics.

 

[Breathe]

I am anti anyone who decides that because a god say so, they want to kill me.

[...]

Believers believe have the monopoly on morals, and ethics.

S'up?

It must be scary to live in a world where you think the religious are out to get you, and tiring because there's nothing to back it up.

 

[monti]

It must be scary to live in a world where you think the religious are out to get you, and tiring because there's nothing to back it up.

I don't know if you are suggesting a strawman argument with your picture so I will address your comment only;

So there are no religious fundamentalists who want to kill me because their god deems it that all none believers should be killed.
O well, I have been worrying for my children’s and grandchildren’s future for nothing then? And "without anything to to back it up".

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.)"

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.".

There are many more of those verses about what happens to none believers, but I will take no notice of those dictates although just recently in a British courtroom the defendants at sentencing both claimed that they were

‘soldiers of Allah’ shouted to the judge“'Allahu Akbar' and 'You (Britain) and America will never be safe' during their sentencing at the court in Central London.

Where Islam is dominant (as in the Middle East and Pakistan) religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with little resistance. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe) there is the threat of violence if Muslim demands are not met. Either situation seems to provide a justification for religious terrorism, which is persistent and endemic to Islamic fundamentalism.

The Bible is no exception either, it is riddled with repulsion and repulsive dictates and gods law

Deuteronomy 13:7-12:
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods …do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.

- Deut 13:7-12
. Take, for example, these few verses:
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. - Isaiah 13

Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open. - Hosea 13

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. - Numbers 31

And Jesus tells his flock if they believe in him they won’t die.

But no doubt you will stick stubbornly to what you have stated;

It must be scary to live in a world where you think the religious are out to get you, and tiring because there's nothing to back it up.

I believe it is more "scary" not to take notice of the words of these megalomaniac gods and their dictates.

 

[Breathe]

I don't know if you are suggesting a strawman argument with your picture so I will address your comment only;

I thought it was kinda obvious.

So there are no religious fundamentalists who want to kill me

Pretty much.

because their god deems it that all none believers should be killed.

But this isn't true. It's a strawman.

O well, I have been worrying for my children’s and grandchildren’s future for nothing then? And "without anything to to back it up".

Yup, you got it.

All those verses you posted are for in times of war. It's right there, in front of you, and your translation is wrong.

First off, "fitnah" is not "disbelief". It is "antagonism", or "hostilities".

2:191-193, you've ignored 2:190, which is part of this in context:

Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. [Sahih; 2:190]
​

Or:

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. [Pickthall; 2:190]​

"Stick up for yourself, but don't go out your way to hurt others." Seems fair.

3:56 is believed to be from God, so not relevant to your bogeymen.
4:88-89 is clearly, "Do not make friends with enemies of Muslims, because in times of war, they will be your enemy and you will fight". Nothing wrong with that.

There are many more of those verses about what happens to none believers, but I will take no notice of those dictates although just recently in a British courtroom the defendants at sentencing both claimed that they were

Of course they did. They're angry and wanted to start a civil war.

I've cut out your ego-masturbation about how sucky Muslim countries are because it's irrelevant.

The Bible is no exception either, it is riddled with repulsion and repulsive dictates and gods law

Deuteronomy 13:7-12 is about how the people must under no circumstances be seduced into worshipping others.

Isaiah and Hosea are prophecy, not divine decree. You're making yourself look silly.

And Jesus tells his flock if they believe in him they won’t die.

I have no idea how this is relevant. Keep grasping at straws.

But no doubt you will stick stubbornly to what you have stated;

Not stubbornly, you've not said anything convincing.

I believe it is more "scary" not to take notice of the words of these megalomaniac gods and their dictates.

You're clearly British, and you're most probably from a working class city.

I could wager the closest thing to religion you've ever encountered is being handed some fliers by a brown man in the [local] city centre, seeing a preacher, and having a missionary knock on your door.

How terrifying.

 

[Mycroft]

It's very easy to think of religion as a benevolent organisation full of nice people willing to take to the streets armed with guitars and tracts to defend what they believe when you're a Westerner. But the people of the South Bank in Israel would have a very different story to tell you of how religion affects their lives, so too would many people in the middle-east and in asia. Some people in the world are hunted and killed just because they believe in a different Sky Fairy to someone else, or persecuted because a god promised some land to a certain group of people.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I thought it was kinda obvious.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure in what sense you think the second statement is a strawman; the OP is not directed to any poster in particular, so it is not misconstruing what any one poster has said, and that "morality is impossible without the existence of God", or something similar, is a fairly common argument to encounter from theists. Do all theists believe as much? Well, no, and maybe the OP needs more qualification- but "strawman"? That doesn't really apply here.

The other statement was certainly an exaggeration and likely just melodrama, but the point is a good one- a system of ethics contingent upon the whim of an unfathomable being is a scary notion; even if the being doesn't command his followers to kill people, his followers may well interpret his will as being such- which is, of course, why your comments about the proper interpretation of those Koranic verses frequently touted in support of aggression miss the mark. It isn't about what it "really says" that matters- if certain people interpret it as encouraging violence, and act accordingly, then there is a pretty obvious concern here. And the fact that some religious people do interpret their scriptures along those lines is hardly deniable.

 

[Breathe]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure in what sense you think the second statement is a strawman; the OP is not directed to any poster in particular, so it is not misconstruing what any one poster has said,

And a straw man extends beyond this.

It is misrepresenting views and attacking them.

a system of ethics contingent upon the whim of an unfathomable being is a scary notion; even if the being doesn't command his followers to kill people, his followers may well interpret his will as being such

But that's people.

It isn't about what it "really says" that matters

Yes, it is.

if certain people interpret it as encouraging violence, and act accordingly, then there is a pretty obvious concern here.

People will always try to make things suit them. No surprise.

And the fact that some religious people do interpret their scriptures along those lines is hardly deniable.

And some people interpret the On Origin of Species as support for eugenics. Does that mean we should be wary of people who read this book?
Don't be daft.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And a straw man extends beyond this.

It is misrepresenting views and attacking them.

But what views are being misrepresented? If the OP is concerned with the line of argument I mentioned, which is not an uncommon to see on this very forum, then it isn't a strawman- or at any rate, you've yet to say what it is; the claim that objective moral truths/duties/etc. do not exist unless God does is pretty much tantamount to the claim that theism has a "monopoly" on ethics.

But that's people.

Um... Ok, and?

Yes, it is.

Maybe in a different context, the most tenable interpretation is relevant; but if it is not unusual for religious believers to interpret/misinterpret their religious scriptures or teachings along such lines (which encourage/justify violence), then the OP's concern about dangerous religious people is hardly unfounded. If you get blown up by a crazy religious fanatic, I'm not sure that being told that they simply misinterpreted their religious scriptures is going to be much consolation.

People will always try to make things suit them. No surprise.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a particularly substantial and inherent danger when we're talking about divine command ethics. Which is one obvious objection to such systems of ethics.

And some people interpret the On Origin of Species as support for eugenics. Does that mean we should be wary of people who read this book?

If that happened with the frequency that religious folks interpret their religious teachings as encouraging violence, discrimination, or other dangerous/immoral activities, then yes, absolutely.

Don't be daft.

I'd say you need to follow your own advice.

 

[Breathe]

But what views are being misrepresented?

If you can't see that...

Um... Ok, and?

And there you go. Surely you can understand.

Maybe in a different context, the most tenable interpretation is relevant; but if it is not unusual for religious believers to interpret/misinterpret their religious scriptures or teachings along such lines (which encourage/justify violence), then the OP's concern about dangerous religious people is hardly unfounded.

Pandering to it is feeding it.

If that happened with the frequency that religious folks interpret their religious teachings as encouraging violence, discrimination, or other dangerous/immoral activities, then yes, absolutely.

It did. The eugenics movement.

I'd say you need to follow your own advice.

Sorry, I'm slipping into non-theistic melodramatic habits, it seems.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If you can't see that...

Then you won't tell me, because you don't know either?

About what I suspected.

And there you go. Surely you can understand.

Sure; you clearly thought that point amounted to more than it did.

It did. The eugenics movement.

Apparently you missed the part where I said "If that happened with the frequency that religious folks interpret their religious teachings as encouraging violence, discrimination, or other dangerous/immoral activities". Last time I checked, the "eugenics movement" was not a consistent pattern of violence and discrimination spanning thousands of years in virtually every place human beings have inhabited. Hell, having a similar frequency to that of religious violence is probably a ludicrously high standard to set; if something had even a fraction of that propensity to lead to violence, it would raise a red flag. But even that is quite a lofty standard to achieve.

Sorry, I'm slipping into non-theistic melodramatic habits, it seems.

Oops, here, I'll fix that for you-

Sorry, I'm slipping into theistic melodramatic habits, it seems.

Fixed.

 

[Breathe]

Then you won't tell me, because you don't know either?

About what I suspected.

Nah, I just don't like wasting my time if I know it won't be listened to.

Last time I checked, the "eugenics movement" was not a consistent pattern of violence and discrimination spanning thousands of years in virtually every place human beings have inhabited. Hell, having a similar frequency to that of religious violence is probably a ludicrously high standard to set; if something had even a fraction of that propensity to lead to violence, it would raise a red flag. But even that is quite a lofty standard to achieve.

If it had longer...

Oops, here, I'll fix that for you-

Fixed.

Oh, look; a rule violation.

Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
​

How surprising(!)

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Nah, I just don't like wasting my time if I know it won't be listened to.

"I know but I'm not going to tell you because even though you're explicitly asking, I secretly know you won't listen."

Nice cop out.

If it had longer...

... It wouldn't be any closer. Social darwinism and eugenics was essentially a blip on the radar.

Oh, look; a rule violation.

Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
​

How surprising(!)

Oh look, desperate floundering... How surprising!

 

[Breathe]

Nice cop out.
Oh look, desperate floundering... How surprising!

And this is why I'm not bothering.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And this is why I'm not bothering.

Because you don't know and were neither expecting nor were you prepared for someone to call your bluff; I know, we covered that already.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

BTW, at least come up with an original and plausible cop out- this "I know but won't tell you because I secretly know you won't listen" is pretty tired. Or better yet, just be honest.