Arabs just have different culture, who are we to say they are backward retards? I'd say "the population should rise against the leadership" but we know the result of that is even more fucked up and they turn even more to islam
its actually a sunni uprising in syria and iraq who dont feel represented by the likes like maleki. it was all triggered by the US invasion of iraq. the whole iraqi army / gouvernment was disbanded. those guys have been through many wars and uprisings. its why ISIS is if you like it or not a working state with taxes. and military command system that adapts quickly. the whole islam thing is mostly propaganda to get more recruits.
jeremy schahill is the expert on this, he explains it better.
The question is irrelevant: they call themselves muslims and act according to a (literal) interpretation of the Quran. It's not for non-muslims to decide whether or not they are 'true' muslim or not.
Every religion has its interpretation (I dare even say that almost every religious individual has his/her own interpretation), but you wouldn't call protestants or orthodox not christian.
As a non-christian, I really don't give a damn what Christian label someone pins on himself, it's all part of the same family.
On the other hand, fundamentalist catholics will probably call protestants not true christians.
In case of IS: they are salafists, only even more extreme than usual, but definitely Islam. What's happening in IS territory is not thàt different than what's happening in Saoudi Arabia, for example.
Religion and politics go hand in hand (both are means to get power).
Like the saying goes: " 'you keep them poor, I keep them stupid', the priest says to the politician" (or something amongst those lines )
Last edited by Il_Padrino on Wed, 11th Mar 2015 11:29; edited 1 time in total
The question is irrelevant: they call themselves muslims and act according to a (literal) interpretation of the Quran. It's not for non-muslims to decide whether or not they are 'true' muslim or not.
Every religion has its interpretation (I dare even say that almost every religious individual has his/her own interpretation), but you wouldn't call protestants or orthodox not Christian.
As a non-Christian, I really don't give a damn what Christian label someone pins on himself, it's all part of the same family.
In case of IS: they are salafists, only even more extreme than usual, but definitely Islam. What's happening in IS territory is not thàt different than what's happening in Saoudi Arabia, for example.
So if someone is an atheist (or whatever label someone pins to themselves) and there's a group of atheists who do certain things for their own agenda, are all atheists responsible for that group of people?
No, because atheïsm isn't organized like religions.
Atheïsts are of course free to form a certain group, but they simply can't speak for all atheïsts, because it doesn't work that way.
It's comparable to the discussion that atheïsm is also a "belief, just in no god", which is also irrelevant.
No, because atheïsm isn't organized like religions.
Atheïsts are of course free to form a certain group, but they simply can't speak for all atheïsts, because it doesn't work that way.
It's comparable to the discussion that atheïsm is also a "belief, just in no god", which is also irrelevant.
So it's not the same because atheists aren't organized in the same way religious people are (place of worship, guidelines to live your life by, meeting-places etc. etc.), is that what you're saying?
paxsali wrote:
Prefetian wrote:
So if someone is an atheist (or whatever label someone pins to themselves) and there's a group of atheists who do certain things for their own agenda, are all atheists responsible for that group of people?
It is a general principle that no group of people is condemned as a whole for the actions of part of that group.
The criterium here is the actions taken or the behavior shown, not the common denominator/identifier of that group.
So the correct way to divide the groups would be:
- Group A does B and ...
- Group A does not B.
If you condemn action B, you cannot blame all of Group A, you have to divide them into GroupA(B) and GroupA(!B).
That would be the proper way of thinking.
Because ....
If you condemn Group A for being Group A, it is not necessary to say what it is they are doing wrong.
So Group A does B, or C or D, what's the difference? If you condemn the Group A as a whole, they might just aswell do nothing at all.
You can apply this to any group, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Darkhaired people, Blond people, Fat people, Skinny people, Nalo...
That's sort of what I'm going for.
I wouldn't say all rich people are scumbags because a certain few completely abuse their power. Or that all iPhone users must be retarded for buying the same phone over and over again.
However, as a member of group A, you should be aware of the actions your group does.
And if certain members do things that goes against what the group stands for, it has to be condemned, but it has to be done by other members of that group.
The opinions and views from outsiders is simply ignored, anyway.
See the 'wir haben is nicht gewusst' debate after World War 2.
I'm a muslim and I'm not organized in any way. How does it make me different from any atheist, which share the same non-believe in a god, from the point that Islam is an organized religion? Islam has various rules that state in which case you are not acting islamic and are not part of the group. ISIS has broken pretty much any and all of the rules...
And pretty much every muslim scholar, except the ones that are in ISIS, have condemned every action they have undertaken til now.
Btw, I guess I have broken plenty of the rules too, but I at least do not go around and say that I am doing it in the name of Islam or are the most religious person and role model muslim
Ok, so maybe it was a bad example to use. But still, judging a whole group of people just because a part of of that group does something is absurd to me.
Like saying all Jews are greedy bastards who only want money, or all North Americans are stupid and all Russians are crazed drunks.
It just does not compute....
However, as a member of group A, you should be aware of the actions your group does.
But how does that help anything? Catholics around the world knew about the IRA but they couldn't really do anything about it as they (the IRA) had their own agenda and just wouldn't listen.
However, as a member of group A, you should be aware of the actions your group does.
And if certain members do things that goes against what the group stands for, it has to be condemned, but it has to be done by other members of that group.
The opinions and views from outsiders is simply ignored, anyway.
See the 'wir haben is nicht gewusst' debate after World War 2.
Easier said, than done.
How do you want to control the actions of other dark haired people?
Adolf was dark haired.
How do you want to control the actions of dog owners?
Adolf owned a dog.
How do you justify to take controll or influence over other group members?
Does the Catholic Church give orders to Protestants just so that they can have a consistent "christian ideology " under all Christians?
Not only is it impossible to actually do, where do you get your legitimation from? You have no right to even attempt that.
You can try that inside your sub-group. So Catholics can try that under Catholics and so on ... Shiites under Shiites, Sunis under Sunis, ...
But not even there is it always clear who has the legitimation, the majority of believers in that group or the minority of scolars?
This isn't entirely correct.
Being a member of a religion (or the Nazi party if we're talking about the aftermath of WWII) is still a choice, having dark skin or black hair isn't. Owning a dog is a choice.
If you want to belong to a certain group, it's a choice. When you don't agree with that group, you can either leave the group or comply.
The catholic church can't give orders to protestants, as both consider themselves as being 'right and true' religion (different groups).
Prefetian wrote:
Il_Padrino wrote:
However, as a member of group A, you should be aware of the actions your group does.
But how does that help anything? Catholics around the world knew about the IRA but they couldn't really do anything about it as they (the IRA) had their own agenda and just wouldn't listen.
They can still condone it, saying IRA's actions are against catholicism. (I'd suspect the IRA would just give a different interpretation of the bible)
But the IRA in specific isn't a very good example, as it has many different types of members, including atheists and communists. It's not based on religion but on nationalism.
There must have been a door there in the wall, when I came in.
Truly gone fishing.
Religion is basically something you inherit from your parents/elders when you're born, so it's not as easy to just denounce it. Depending on your surroundings also determines how easy or hard it is to make that choice to denounce your religion.
As I was born a catholic it wasn't until my late teens when I started seeing myself as a non-believer. This created friction not only between me and family-members (as many of them were devout Catholics) but also with people I had been friends with for quite some time. Luckily as Sweden is very secular the debate of religion rarely even came up as a subject.
Yet there are still traditions here (in Sweden) where children get baptized and all the hokus-pokus that surrounds Christianity even if the parents aren't per say religious.
The IRA is a perfect example as it was mostly composed by roman Catholics, their struggle might have been based on nationalism but religion played a big part of it (due to discrimination against Catholics).
Last edited by Mr.Tinkles on Wed, 11th Mar 2015 14:32; edited 1 time in total
Religion is basically something you inherit from your parents/elders when you're born, so it's not as easy to just denounce it. Depending on your surroundings also determines how easy or hard it is to make that choice to denounce your religion.
As I was born a catholic it wasn't until my late teens when I started seeing myself as a non-believer. This created friction not only between me and family-members (as many of them were devout catholics) but also with people I had been friends with for quite some time. Luckily as Sweden is very secular the debate of religion rarely even came up as a subject.
Yet there are still traditions here (in Sweden) where children get baptized and all the hokus-pokus that surrounds christianity even if the parents aren't per say religious.
The IRA is a perfect example as it was mostly composed by roman catholics, their struggle might have been based on nationalism but religion played a big part of it (due to discrimination against catholics).
Yes, and this is exactly why I am so fanatically against such religions. The indoctrination of children and social pressure is just appalling.
I understand very well that for certain religions it's very hard to denounce it, especially in smaller communities or strict derivatives of a religion.
But still, when all things considered, it's a choice (albeit a very hard one, especially when you have to go against your family or when even your life is at risk).
The tradition of baptizing while not-practicing the religion still exists here as well. To me, it just proofs how silly religions are, as people just pick out the stuff they like and ignore the rest. In my eyes, it doesn't work like that: either you belong to the sect and follow its rules, or you don't.
Religion is basically something you inherit from your parents/elders when you're born, so it's not as easy to just denounce it. Depending on your surroundings also determines how easy or hard it is to make that choice to denounce your religion.
As I was born a catholic it wasn't until my late teens when I started seeing myself as a non-believer. This created friction not only between me and family-members (as many of them were devout catholics) but also with people I had been friends with for quite some time. Luckily as Sweden is very secular the debate of religion rarely even came up as a subject.
Yet there are still traditions here (in Sweden) where children get baptized and all the hokus-pokus that surrounds christianity even if the parents aren't per say religious.
The IRA is a perfect example as it was mostly composed by roman catholics, their struggle might have been based on nationalism but religion played a big part of it (due to discrimination against catholics).
Yes, and this is exactly why I am so fanatically against such religions. The indoctrination of children and social pressure is just appalling.
I understand very well that for certain religions it's very hard to denounce it, especially in smaller communities or strict derivatives of a religion.
But still, when all things considered, it's a choice (albeit a very hard one, especially when you have to go against your family or when even your life is at risk).
The tradition of baptizing while not-practicing the religion still exists here as well. To me, it just proofs how silly religions are, as people just pick out the stuff they like and ignore the rest. In my eyes, it doesn't work like that: either you belong to the sect and follow its rules, or you don't.
But that's the thing, you're fanatically against it, which puts you in the same category as any fanatic.
That makes it just as futile to discuss about as with any religious fanatic because it just ends with two (or more) parties trying to shove their point of view down the others throat.
I find religion just as silly and bogus but I try to coexist instead of convert as to them it actually has some significant meaning. The only time I argue about religion with people is when they're trying to be fanatical and shove it down my throat (or someone who's pushing atheism in the same way).
Yet there are still traditions here (in Sweden) where children get baptized and all the hokus-pokus that surrounds christianity even if the parents aren't per say religious.
Same in most of Europe sadly. For religion it 's a key strategy to get them while they are young. Due to that kids grow up with it and keep labeling themselves as Muslim,Christian,... while in reality they are not... apart from the few traditions they follow and a mix of beliefs that fits in with most other religions and being a humanitarian.
My fiancee's sister for instance: did baptize her child a few months ago, eventho both of them are not religious at all. Not even a hint of it.
Meanwhile they had a comment: that it looked weird that I didn't sing along with the church songs... I mean get real I was already feeling that I shouldn't even be sitting there, but for them it seems it's normal to hear god in every sentence, sing songs all the while they have 0 belief in it. That's how silly 'traditions' become.
Yet there are still traditions here (in Sweden) where children get baptized and all the hokus-pokus that surrounds christianity even if the parents aren't per say religious.
Same in most of Europe sadly. For religion it 's a key strategy to get them while they are young. Due to that kids grow up with it and keep labeling themselves as Muslim,Christian,... while in reality they are not... apart from the few traditions they follow and a mix of beliefs that fits in with most other religions and being a humanitarian.
My fiancee's sister for instance: did baptize her child a few months ago, eventho both of them are not religious at all. Not even a hint of it.
Meanwhile they had a comment: that it looked weird that I didn't sing along with the church songs... I mean get real I was already feeling that I shouldn't even be sitting there, but for them it seems it's normal to hear god in every sentence, sing songs all the while they have 0 belief in it. That's how silly 'traditions' become.
Yeah, it feels weird but c'est la vie.
I hadn't been in a church for a long time until I met my fiancee and we went on christmas for the night mass. I saw a bunch of teenagers sitting there bored out of their god damn minds doing fuck all except listening to the sermon, turns out they need 'points' or someshit to get their confirmation (I think that's what it's called). And of course after the confirmation they get gifts.
So using that knowledge they are fake atheists (you know, like someone called Pumpy for a fake Muslim because he wasn't knee deep into all the dogma).
But that's the thing, you're fanatically against it, which puts you in the same category as any fanatic.
That makes it just as futile to discuss about as with any religious fanatic because it just ends with two (or more) parties trying to shove their point of view down the others throat.
I find religion just as silly and bogus but I try to coexist instead of convert as to them it actually has some significant meaning. The only time I argue about religion with people is when they're trying to be fanatical and shove it down my throat (or someone who's pushing atheism in the same way).
I fully agree that I'm a fanatic anti-theist (hence the name), which is also why I don't just call myself non-religious.
However, I would never kill for my belief as 1) atheism is not a belief and 2) I'm also a humanist. You will find that there haven't been a lot of 'atheïsm/science inspired' murders in history (if any!?). This alone separates me (and atheism) from other fanatics (and religious fanatism in particular, as killing infidels is common ground for every religion).
I too want to co-exist, but I think I'm kicking in an open door when I say that religions are far more pushing their ideas to the open community (the 'organized' element). I have nothing against religious people who keep their ideas between like minded others.
If you find I'm shoving my atheism down your throat, then I apologise. I was under the impression I was just pointing out some irregularities in the logic presented
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
)
I was already feeling that I shouldn't even be sitting there, but for them it seems it's normal to hear god in every sentence, sing songs all the while they have 0 belief in it. That's how silly 'traditions' become.
