Jihad Watch

[snow hope]

However, it remains that I don't think we should be trying to promote a global war between the adherents of Islam (of all of its different varieties) and everyone else.

You may not think so, but there seems to be a lot of extremists on the Islam side, ISIS for a start, who are hell bent on it and if you can't see that you need to open your eyes a bit wider before it is too late!

Although there are Muslims who support Daesh there are also Sunni Muslims who oppose Daesh (such as the Kurds for example).

Now Daesh would like a global war of the religions. It appears that you agree with them and hence would like to declare war on all Muslims including the Kurds who are fighting Daesh.

Regardless of any issues of principle, there is a simple practical issue, which is that if you declare war on people they tend not to like this and tend to respond negatively.

Hence your position in supporting a global religious war is indeed directly aligned and supportive of the strategy of Daesh.

My view is that on any level that is a strategy that is completely nuts.

How dare you interpret me so wrongly! Where have I said that I would like a global war of the religions? How can you misunderstand me so much? I assumed you were reasonably intelligent.....

My point was, that whilst you and me and most others do not want to "promote a global war between the adherents of Islam", Islamic extremists are doing their best to promote that global war! And despite our desire not to go down this road, we obviously need to protect ourselves from the terrorist activities (that we are all too well aware of) and the undoubted increasing threat of Islamic terrorist activities.

In addition we need to be cognisant of the terrorist threat that the refugee crisis is likely amplifying and how this may be precipitating much greater terrorist threat. We also need to use our intelligence and listen to the experts who point out that the culture of a proportion of the people behind the spread of Islam, see this as a mechanism by which they can take over regions and countries and introduce their culture thereby usurping and displacing our culture. Sharia law is a good example of one of the objectives trying to be achieved by some Islamic supporters here in the UK currently.

If we ignore this kind of thing (and act stupidly or naively) then we do so at our own peril.

[Little John]

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which creates an offence in England and Wales of inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion.

Section 29A
Meaning of "religious hatred"
In this Part "religious hatred" means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.
Section 29B:
(1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.

Is that an implied threat to other posters on here, then? Or, are you just "posting a link" because you think it may be "useful" in the context of this thread and should, "in no way, be seen as being necessarily reflective of your own views". Ducking and diving again....eh?

You are such a sad little joke Biff Vernon

[Snail]

Lets start thinking of religion as child abuse. But this would entail teaching children to think.

[sigh]

I'm afraid the Harris/Dawkins view on religion is not particularly sophisticated. The idea that there is no metaphysical basis to any religion - that metaphysical naturalism is necessarily true or even probably true - is not sophisticated.

The correct authority to consult on this matter is not science, but philosophy, and naturalistic atheism is by no means any sort of majority or consensus view within philosophy.

In short: most philosophers think Dawkins and Harris are wrong, so you have no grounds or right to dismiss all religions as "child abuse".

On the other hand, teaching that any one religion is "the one true religion" and that all others are false could be deemed harmful and prohibited, some so-called religions probably shouldn't be classed as religions at all (e.g. scientology) and as has been discussed at length in this thread, some religions are quite clearly dangerous and harmful.

The argument about whether Islam as a whole is a problem, or just part of Islam, or whether all muslims are a problem or just some, is a distraction and a bogus argument. Obviously some muslims are a problem and others are not. Obviously some forms of Islam are more harmful than others. The only thing that's actually worth debating is whether or not we can/should say that Islam in general has a tendency to cause serious problems, and I think the answer is also quite obviously that we can and should say that. Clearly some people don't agree.

The real problem here, in my opinion, is a widespread reluctance and failure to admit that the tendency of Islam to produce extremists is a direct result of the doctrines contained in the Quran. In other words, saying things like "Islam is a religion of peace", while failing to point out that the Quran is full of commandments to kill infidels, is counter-productive. The correct approach is to point out that the Quran is not, after all, perfect - and that some things in the Quran must be rejected if Islam is to be acceptable in the modern world. And so long as the apologists for Islam keep telling lies about this instead of forcing muslims to face up to the truth, then we can expect the public to turn to people like Donald Trump who is not scared to speak the truth.

95% of people who would class themselves as religious wouldn't know what you mean by metaphysical. I'm not sure many would even care. Religion provides a function for most, but only a skindeep, automatic, mechanical one. That's why any deeper message is lost within masses and masses of ornamental junk. In fact, the books are almost designed to steer the reader towards the external.

Even Buddhism is bloated with made-up unnecessary stuff. Surely you agree?

The basis might not be this. But the stuff built upon the foundation is.

Kierkegaard said something like 'the more you look for god the more you lose god'. Something like that.

Its child abuse because people are taught, directly and indirectly, that its true. That a personal god somewhere above them will blah blah blah. They're fed this at such an early age, the thinking becomes a habit and a belief. Not a truthful belief, a delusional one. One which is fixed in their mind and unchallenged. Constantly reinforced. A belief shaped from without.

Why are people sheeple? Why are they so taken with consumerism? Why automatically reject climate change? Why so selfish? Why not even consider peak oil? Why do they seem to think in a different way to us folks at PowerSwitch?

Because the world they live in is one shaped by lies and delusions. And religions are partly to blame for this.

As is education because to my knowledge, philosophy isn't taught in school. Religion is poor-philosophy. Science is taught, religion is. Not philosophy. Put religion in a philosophical context. And also a psychological one.

I recognise science has limitations. Discuss these limitations in philosophy class.

Imo, you deal with Islam by dealing directly with the quaran. Which is self-evidently a hateful text and surely would contravene the hate law someone posted above. What you said.

Sacrifice Christianity and other religions. Surely any 'good' stuff can be promoted without the self-serving dogma.

[Snail]

Automation wrote:

(It amazes me that we still wonder why people make such irrational decisions, or vote for such idiots, when they are so clearly taught as children to be stupid).

Yes, agree completely

[UndercoverElephant]

Lets start thinking of religion as child abuse. But this would entail teaching children to think.

[sigh]

I'm afraid the Harris/Dawkins view on religion is not particularly sophisticated. The idea that there is no metaphysical basis to any religion - that metaphysical naturalism is necessarily true or even probably true - is not sophisticated.

The correct authority to consult on this matter is not science, but philosophy, and naturalistic atheism is by no means any sort of majority or consensus view within philosophy.

In short: most philosophers think Dawkins and Harris are wrong, so you have no grounds or right to dismiss all religions as "child abuse".

On the other hand, teaching that any one religion is "the one true religion" and that all others are false could be deemed harmful and prohibited, some so-called religions probably shouldn't be classed as religions at all (e.g. scientology) and as has been discussed at length in this thread, some religions are quite clearly dangerous and harmful.

The argument about whether Islam as a whole is a problem, or just part of Islam, or whether all muslims are a problem or just some, is a distraction and a bogus argument. Obviously some muslims are a problem and others are not. Obviously some forms of Islam are more harmful than others. The only thing that's actually worth debating is whether or not we can/should say that Islam in general has a tendency to cause serious problems, and I think the answer is also quite obviously that we can and should say that. Clearly some people don't agree.

The real problem here, in my opinion, is a widespread reluctance and failure to admit that the tendency of Islam to produce extremists is a direct result of the doctrines contained in the Quran. In other words, saying things like "Islam is a religion of peace", while failing to point out that the Quran is full of commandments to kill infidels, is counter-productive. The correct approach is to point out that the Quran is not, after all, perfect - and that some things in the Quran must be rejected if Islam is to be acceptable in the modern world. And so long as the apologists for Islam keep telling lies about this instead of forcing muslims to face up to the truth, then we can expect the public to turn to people like Donald Trump who is not scared to speak the truth.

95% of people who would class themselves as religious wouldn't know what you mean by metaphysical. I'm not sure many would even care.

That doesn't make any difference to the point I am making. In other words, the average religious person does not have to understand the history and technical terms of philosophy in order to have be "more right" about religion than Dawkins and Harris. And it might be pointed out that Dawkins and Harris would probably also struggle to define "metaphysical" accurately.

Religion provides a function for most, but only a skindeep, automatic, mechanical one. That's why any deeper message is lost within masses and masses of ornamental junk. In fact, the books are almost designed to steer the reader towards the external.

I don't agree. I think there's a wide spectrum and that there's more to it than you believe there is.

Even Buddhism is bloated with made-up unnecessary stuff. Surely you agree?

Buddhism is a religion. Religions aren't philosophy, they're religions. Religions have evolved over long periods of time and during that time they acquire stuff. Is all of it "necessary"? I'd answer that by saying that a religion with no unneccesary stuff isn't really a religion, but a very pure form of religious philosophy. As for "made up" - this term reflects your position as a naturalist/atheist. Religions consist largely of mythological symbolism. Take Christianity for example. You could say the story of Jesus being crucified is "made up and unneccesary", but I think you'd be missing the point. It's a myth, and it has a meaning. If you take it to be history then it is "made up" and wrong. But if you take it as a myth and understand the meaning then it is neither of those things.

Kierkegaard said something like 'the more you look for god the more you lose god'. Something like that.

Kierkegaard said lots of things that you, with the greatest respect, have no chance whatsoever of understanding. I'm not trying to be rude here, but Kierkegaard comes at the end of a long history of philosophical progress that you simply do not understand. I know you don't understand it, because if you did understand it then you would not be a simple naturalist/atheist. For someone coming from a Dawkinsian/Harrisian point of view, Kierkegaard might as well have been writing in Chinese.

Its child abuse because people are taught, directly and indirectly, that its true. That a personal god somewhere above them will blah blah blah. They're fed this at such an early age, the thinking becomes a habit and a belief. Not a truthful belief, a delusional one. One which is fixed in their mind and unchallenged. Constantly reinforced. A belief shaped from without.

And it would be better if they were led to a deeper understanding of these matters. It would also be better if you could be led to a deeper understanding of them, but I'm fairly certain you either aren't interested or are quite convinced that you know enough already.

Why are people sheeple?

Because humans are tribal animals and tribes don't work if most of the people aren't sheeple. Religions don't turn natural freethinkers into sheeple. Humans are primed - pre-programmed - to have sheeple tendencies. If you take their religion away, then they will follow something else, and it might be worse.

Why so selfish?

Because they've been taken out of their tribal situation and placed in a situation where being selfish tends to produce better results than it would if they belonged to a tribe.

Why not even consider peak oil? Why do they seem to think in a different way to us folks at PowerSwitch?

For reasons given above, plus it is easier to go on believing what it suits you to believe than dig for the more difficult truth, and because they are being bombarded with propaganda to prevent them from questioning and finding out what is really going on. Among other reasons.

Because the world they live in is one shaped by lies and delusions. And religions are partly to blame for this.

Yes. I am not saying religions are perfect. I am saying they aren't child abuse.

Sacrifice Christianity and other religions. Surely any 'good' stuff can be promoted without the self-serving dogma.

Unless they are causing overt harm (as Islam is) then I think it is better to leave religions to do what they do.

[johnhemming2]

The simple point in this debate is that you can either be specific about a category of people who happen to be also Muslim that are clearly a danger to the rest of the world or take a general view that Islam (and as a consequence all Muslims are a danger to the rest of the world).

I take the view that there are people of all religions who are a danger to the world, but not all adherents to Islam. Hence Islam is not a global threat, but instead certain interpretations.

It is a bipolar decision. Either only some Muslims are a threat or all Muslims are a threat. Anyone who is saying Islam itself is a problem is also saying all Muslims are a problem. That I disagree with.

That is the danger in Trumps divisiveness. As a consequence of appalling activities by some Muslims he proposes taking action which causes problems for all Muslims.

It is a form of collective punishment. It is wrong.

[kenneal - lagger]

Do you agree, John, that there are verses in the Quran which support the killing of guilty people, that is non believers?

[UndercoverElephant]

The simple point in this debate is that you can either be specific about a category of people who happen to be also Muslim that are clearly a danger to the rest of the world or take a general view that Islam (and as a consequence all Muslims are a danger to the rest of the world).

No, that's wrong. Firstly it is a false dichotomy - you can make general claims about Islam at the same time as making specific claims about certain groups of muslims. Secondly, saying that Islam in general is problematic does not equate to saying that every single muslim is a potential jihadi.

It is a bipolar decision.

No it isn't. It's a false dichotomy.

Either only some Muslims are a threat or all Muslims are a threat. Anyone who is saying Islam itself is a problem is also saying all Muslims are a problem. That I disagree with.

Then you are disagreeing with a straw man. It is perfectly legitimate to point out general problems with Islam without implying that every single muslim is a problem.

[johnhemming2]

There is nothing to be gained by discussing the various parts of the qu'ran or bible that are intolerant of other religions.

It still comes down to the question I posed in my previous post. There are often conflicting statements in religious documents.

[Automaton]

I am not saying religions are perfect. I am saying they aren't child abuse.

You don't think that forcing children to believe nonsense (or else) is child abuse? You don't think, for example, that teaching young girls that they will always be inferior and should be subservient to men is child abuse? I'm sure I could list many more ways it most definitely is abusive if I tried. I'm sure you could too. Or maybe we just have very different understandings of the term 'abuse'.

Unless they are causing overt harm (as Islam is) then I think it is better to leave religions to do what they do.

Seriously UE? You think religions do a good job, so we should just let them get on with it? That's funny, I'll just hope that you were joking.

Apart from the many other criticisms I have of religion, I will say this in relation to the spread of islam and jihad: one of the biggest reasons Islam is protected and allowed to grow in the west is that the diminishing numbers of christians and other religions are desperate to keep their own faiths privileged and protected, and so they've used the umbrella term of 'religion' to increase their numbers in the fight for their 'rights', pretending that they can all get along nicely even though they each think everyone else is wrong. As islam grows, the number of extremists will also grow. As long as we won't face this and stop protecting ALL religion, then nothing will be done, and they/we will be overwhelmed.

[johnhemming2]

It is perfectly legitimate to point out general problems with Islam without implying that every single muslim is a problem.

Sadly it is clearly implicit. Particularly to Muslims.

[UndercoverElephant]

There is nothing to be gained by discussing the various parts of the qu'ran or bible that are intolerant of other religions.

It still comes down to the question I posed in my previous post. There are often conflicting statements in religious documents.

Sorry, but I still think you have not read the Quran and do not understand what you are talking about. Yes, there are conflicting statements in religious documents. But in the case of the Quran there is also a clearly established means of resolving them: if there's a contradiction then the later statement takes precendence. And it is the bits of the Quran that were written later that are the most violent and intolerant. I don't think you understand the history, John. Mohammed invented a religion that was already causing conflicts within his own lifetime, and he responded by writing ever more intolerant and violent commandments for his followers.

[UndercoverElephant]

It is perfectly legitimate to point out general problems with Islam without implying that every single muslim is a problem.

Sadly it is clearly implicit. Particularly to Muslims.

But that's the essence of the problem, John. Mainstream, "non-problem" muslims do not accept that the jihadis are actually motivated by real Islam. Leaving them alone because they aren't blowing people up doesn't solve the problem, because they need to accept that Islam needs to be reformed.

[kenneal - lagger]

I have split, as best I can the topic into this Jihad Watch thread and another called Philosophy of Religion. Hope this is OK.

[kenneal - lagger]

This is an interesting blog on the death of Asad Shah, the Glasgow shopkeeper, who was killed before Easter by another Muslim. Apparently he was an Ahmadi Muslim, a group that formally rejects the concept of Jihad, and is widely dispised by mainstream Muslims. He is one of the bad Musllims that Jihadis are encouraged to kill. So much for Islam, the peaceful religion!