What is Jihad?

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

SA,

The standard definition of Atheism:

a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

That is the basic underlying doctrine if you will, and, as far as I can tell, both Mao, Stalin and their followers accepted it. Leaving questions of "dictatorship", totalitarianism etc. aside, the point is that from the original "no belief in God", they used their mental faculties and reasoning capabilities to come up with an ideology that justified the atrocities they committed. Whatever you want to call the eventual product of that perverted mindset, the fact is that God played no role in it - rather it was the specific absence of God.

Other atheists end up following Secular humanism - and some believers like me end up being moderate Muslims - tolerant and respectful of all.

 

[Flintlock]

Note: I am not referring to misinterpretations and perversions of Islam/religion like the Wahabi, Taliban etc. practice, but of pure, unadulterated religion..

Why not? the followers of Wahabi sect consider their belief to be pure and unadulterated. The Taliban are equally convinced of the same. So who is right? You, the Wahabi, or the Taliban?

You would obviously say that you are correct. But how did you come to this conclusion?

You came to this conclusion because you analyzed all 3 from the outsider's perspective.

You are agnostic to all 3 belief systems, as your name says.

This is precisely why blind faith is dangerous. It prevents from seeing the "other side", as they say.

.

I am merely responding to the arguments raised, Dawkins on this thread primarily, where religion is termed the root of all evil. .

Did he? As far as I understood, he blamed religion for A LOT of the stupid stuff that goes on....but not all the stupid stuff.

.

I can only speak to Islam, not all belief systems, since it is the only one with which I have a rudimentary familiarity, and I do not see any of that which you claim "There are inherent faults, misconceptions and seeds of intolerance in 'belief systems'" - The Quran commands tolerance, respect, equality - for humans, beasts and nature - so that one example alone demolishes the premise of your argument. .

You have to look deeper, at the attitudes expressed....

...like the implication that the universe was created for the benefit of mankind...

...like the word "tolerance" itself, which asks you to somehow "tolerate" another viewpoint, not seek to understand it....

Also, you have to look at the experimental results. If you analyze the results of Islamic empires, they haven't been the utopias that they should have been. We all know the deficiencies and I guess no point discussing here. Here's my question: If god is all knowing and all powerful, he would have known that Islam would be interpreted and implemented wrongly. Then why did he allow this to happen?
If he allowed it to happen, then he allowed human suffering. Does he not care for the suffering of humans? If he doesn't, then he's no better than the next dictator!!



.

Let me attempt to probe even further, if Atheism does not follow a "belief", other than "no belief in God", what acts as the guiding light for morality, ethics and justice? From your and SA's posts I would infer that a logical and rational ability to reason towards "universal truth" perhaps? .

Ah, the universal truth. There is no universal truth. That is a fact.
Men as selfish, that is a fact.
If the police is let off the streets for a day, seemingly good people will begin to murder each other...that is a fact.

The point is, that atheism compels us to look deeper as to why things are the way they are. They force us to understand that men are imperfect beings created by an imperfect process called evolution that has spread things like talent, beauty, intelligence so unfairly and crudely.

Your argument is one of the strongest ones against atheism. I.e., in the absence of a god who punishes us for our sins, who will prevent us from turning into animals and killing each other.
It doesn't disprove atheism, but it seemingly makes religion important.

This is the part of atheism that requires faith. The faith that everyone will logically conclude that it is a stupid idea to steal from your neighbour, or throw stones and "witches".
The faith that those among us with superior abilities, like scientists, will one day explain everything about the universe, and that the average man on the street wil understand, and won't need religion to give him a simpler explanation.

I however, am not optimistic. I see religion playing an important role for many centuries ahead.



.

Again, from your posts, I would infer - tolerance, progress, respect for all etc. - but that is identical to the beliefs my hypothetical religion and deity command me to follow! So what is the difference? If I am "blindly obedient" to my deity, then are you going to suggest that you are not "blindly obedient" to your capabilities of logic and reason? .

Thats the point...your religion is hypothetical. There is no such religion that has practically proved to be all that.

Also, Your religion is impossible because it would not need a deity to establish its influence on people.

Moreover, there is nothing like "blindly obedient to logic and reason". Logic and reason itself stems from doubt and disbelief in the established POV.


.

Another aspect of the Atheists ability to "logically and rationally reason" towards universal truth - can you conclusively and unequivocally state that every single atheist will arrive at the same conclusions of universal truth that you do? Stalin and Mao stand out as glaring examples of the fallacy of such a claim. Whether one believes in God or not is not necessarily going to automatically cleanse their minds of prejudices and biases - the existence of those is a complex interplay of culture, societal norms, beliefs (or lack of) etc.
.

True, no one will arrive at the same conclusion. However, absense of belief systems such as religion and Maoism compels everyone to come to their own conclusion regarding "life, universe and everything".

People can choose whatever they want to believe.

You might argue that people are free to choose their religion, but that is not true at all.
Most people are born into their religion, they cannot choose it.
Thus, religion actively discourages questioning and encourages people to believe what they are told.

 

[Flintlock]

SA,

The standard definition of Atheism:

a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

That is the basic underlying doctrine if you will, and, as far as I can tell, both Mao, Stalin and their followers accepted it. Leaving questions of "dictatorship", totalitarianism etc. aside, the point is that from the original "no belief in God", they used their mental faculties and reasoning capabilities to come up with an ideology that justified the atrocities they committed. Whatever you want to call the eventual product of that perverted mindset, the fact is that God played no role in it - rather it was the specific absence of God..

Did Stalin convince his people that his way was correct way?
Not at all. His subjects didn't have a choice but to follow him.
Stalin could never justify his atrocities to anyone but himself and his band of cronies.

Another Important point: How long did Stalinism and Maoism last? These ideologies are all but dead.
Why?
Because they lack certain core principles of a religion. They don't get passed on from generation to generation, and their "god" dies like any other human being.

Fact is, atheism didn't have anything to do with what these dictators did. Dictators are always like that, irrespective of whether they believe in god.


.

Other atheists end up following Secular humanism - and some believers like me end up being moderate Muslims - tolerant and respectful of all.

Atheism gives credibility to scientists, and Religion to priests.

Personally, I'd prefer the scientist over the priest.

You might say that isn't Newton the bible of science? Aren't scientists, since they interpret established textbooks, like priests?
Well, they aren't. The reason: Even a child can question Newton in the classroom.
However, a child can't question the bible in a church.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Why not? the followers of Wahabi sect consider their belief to be pure and unadulterated. The Taliban are equally convinced of the same. So who is right? You, the Wahabi, or the Taliban?

You would obviously say that you are correct. But how did you come to this conclusion?

You came to this conclusion because you analyzed all 3 from the outsider's perspective.

You are agnostic to all 3 belief systems, as your name says.

This is precisely why blind faith is dangerous. It prevents from seeing the "other side", as they say.

Because that would be the equivalent of bringing up Mao and Stalin as representative of atheism - I am not assuming that of atheism, and the point of that disclaimer was to not get into tangent arguments based on those types of ideologies. We are ignoring extreme cases, other than to point out that when one side generalizes and uses them to vilify the other, that they themselves are not perfect. I am loyal to my religion as I understand it, which is not what the Wahabis or Taliban preach. I am not asking you how you know that what Stalin and Mao preached is the truth, when you say that atheism, the way you understand it is not what they turned it into, I believe you. I expect you to extend the same courtesy to me.

Also it is not up to me to prove to you that Islam is not violent or intolerant - that would be trying to prove something that does not exist, the burden of proof is upon you to prove to me that Islam is violent. My only condition to that - I only believe the Quran to be infallible, so I will not accept hadith as evidence. If you believe that subject is too inflammatory, then that is your choice, but I will treat it as a vindication of my claim that "Islam commands respect and tolerance of all men, beast and nature".

Did he? As far as I understood, he blamed religion for A LOT of the stupid stuff that goes on....but not all the stupid stuff.

You get my point. Lets not get into arguments over semantics.

You have to look deeper, at the attitudes expressed....

...like the implication that the universe was created for the benefit of mankind...

...like the word "tolerance" itself, which asks you to somehow "tolerate" another viewpoint, not seek to understand it....

If the universe was created for the benefit of mankind, and mankind is to respect and nurture all that exists upon it, what is wrong with that? Who isn't covered under that? The Martians? technically if they came to earth, they would exist on it, and hence also be covered.

Also, you have to look at the experimental results. If you analyze the results of Islamic empires, they haven't been the utopias that they should have been. We all know the deficiencies and I guess no point discussing here. Here's my question: If god is all knowing and all powerful, he would have known that Islam would be interpreted and implemented wrongly. Then why did he allow this to happen?
If he allowed it to happen, then he allowed human suffering. Does he not care for the suffering of humans? If he doesn't, then he's no better than the next dictator!!

We are going into a tangent of "god" arguments. I have already conceded that there may not be "logical scientific evidence" of God's existence. But that is not the point I am arguing - it is that belief in God somehow makes you vulnerable to rationalizing evil.

Thats the point...your religion is hypothetical. There is no such religion that has practically proved to be all that.

Also, Your religion is impossible because it would not need a deity to establish its influence on people.

Moreover, there is nothing like "blindly obedient to logic and reason". Logic and reason itself stems from doubt and disbelief in the established POV.

Actually, just before that argument I stated that I did believe that Islam commanded all of what I attributed to my hypothetical religion - and the offer to rebut that is open to you. But You are missing the point. The atheists argue that religion and God cause all these problems, if that is true then belief in any religion or God would cause those problems, hence my hypothetical religion. My hypothetical religion has a God and it has a limited set of commandments that I detailed, so if the atheists are correct, then you have to rebut the argument I made in that post.

Now if you want to stick with the line that "my religion does not exist" then you have admitted that in that case the atheists argument does not hold, therefore it is not belief in religion or God that causes "evil" (since you were not able to show that my hypothetical religion does), but belief in specific religions or Gods - and we are back to proving that Islam "commands violence and intolerance".

About the blind obedience bit - I am narrowing the use of such faculties (logic, reason etc) to moral and ethical dilemmas. Are you saying that a concept like "respect for all innocent life", as understood in common usage, excluding special circumstances (abortion etc), is going to forever be open to "doubt and disbelief"? Surely there are some universally applicable general concepts that should not be open to revision - like equality, justice etc. The finer points of such concepts can continue to be debated upon, and the same is true in theology as well, as new and previously unknown situation come up, but the general principles continue to be accepted, and therefore, if your logic and reason tell you that it is the "right thing to do" to treat everyone equally, you will follow it - or will you now tell me that you distrust what your own mind tells you?

True, no one will arrive at the same conclusion. However, absense of belief systems such as religion and Maoism compels everyone to come to their own conclusion regarding "life, universe and everything".

People can choose whatever they want to believe.

You might argue that people are free to choose their religion, but that is not true at all.
Most people are born into their religion, they cannot choose it.
Thus, religion actively discourages questioning and encourages people to believe what they are told.

Stalin and Mao's systems arose out of "a belief in no God" (atheism), yet you choose to single them out as separate from "atheism", you should also separate "religion" from those that you specifically believe "justify evil".

For everyone to come to their own conclusion regarding life is something I would argue that my religion endorses - my religions own conclusion regarding life is just another view, people are free to follow it if they choose. Just as some who follow religion choose to follow intolerance, some atheists choose to conclude that life means massacring millions of innocents and starting cults. I see no difference there. The Wahabi and Taliban are to religion what Stalin and Mao were to atheism.

Also in such a society, a utopia if you might, scientists would be most respected, since they will put forward the best arguments, not religious leaders who would simply enforce what their ancestors told them.

Ahh, see there you go again with the preconceived notions about religion. My religion commands no "enforcing by priests", and there is nothing wrong if children decide to follow a faith that commands "equality, respect and tolerance for man, beast and nature".

 

[Samudra]

Note: I am not referring to misinterpretations and perversions of Islam/religion like the Wahabi, Taliban etc. practice, but of pure, unadulterated religion.

I reiterate my point. All established religions in their true form are tricks played upon the gullible masses by a few smart and power-hungry men. Some who inherit these religions make it even worse. 'Pure unadulterated religion' is only a nice way to sugarcoat it. Nothing suits that description.

The Quran commands tolerance, respect, equality - for humans, beasts and nature - so that one example alone demolishes the premise of your argument.

So long as a book, and via the book the God herself, sanctions murder of a human under any circumstances that book cannot lay claim to have commanded tolerance, respect and equality.

So if religion does not command that which you suggested is inherent in it, then whether its adherents blindly follow a "divine, infallible deity" does not matter, for to do so would be to follow the principles I have enumerated :"Tolerance and respect for this planet and all that exists on it". What is wrong with even "blindly" following that?

Nothing except the fact that in practical terms tolerance and respect for fellow beings are only extended upon submission or conversion. All pure unadulterated pious platitude about tolerance and respect for everybody remains only in theory - incorporated to help proselytize and more importantly gain legitimacy.

think of a hypothetical religion that has an all powerful deity that commands that which I enumerated above - how can you then suggest that following such a belief system is in any way going to lead to a "rationalization of evil", if it contains none of that which you claim is "evil"?

The all powerful deity would have no need to create any religion.

She could instill morality, ethics and justice in every idiots head and be done with it rather than looking incompetent after making many versions of one religion and letting mere humans corrupt it - now she's got to take the blame for all evil in the name of corrupted religion(s) as well.

She 'let' them go corrupt her codes. So much evil has come to pass in her name that to provide any excuse or imaginary story for this behavior would be easily identified as - what else but yet another blind rationalisation of one's belief. After all she's infallible!

Now you know why they try to make pure unadulterated religion infallible. Men can keep spinning yarn about religion and divinity. The slaughter can always be blamed upon corruption!

there is nothing wrong if children decide to follow a faith that commands "equality, respect and tolerance for man, beast and nature".

If Allah is okay with men following any religion that commands "equality, respect and tolerance for man, beast and nature" why bother with introducing another religion called Islam ? Does that mean there wasn't any faith left standing on earth that commanded "equality, respect and tolerance for man, beast and nature" ?

Or is it yet another clever act - a rather round about way of saying "I dont object you having the chicken but you see I dont have any of it!". The approval doesn't matter anyway - not if its benefits are denied!

 

[Flintlock]

Because that would be the equivalent of bringing up Mao and Stalin as representative of atheism - I am not assuming that of atheism, and the point of that disclaimer was to not get into tangent arguments based on those types of ideologies. We are ignoring extreme cases, other than to point out that when one side generalizes and uses them to vilify the other, that they themselves are not perfect. I am loyal to my religion as I understand it, which is not what the Wahabis or Taliban preach. I am not asking you how you know that what Stalin and Mao preached is the truth, when you say that atheism, the way you understand it is not what they turned it into, I believe you. I expect you to extend the same courtesy to me.

There is nothing to "turn atheism into". Atheism has no set ideals or beliefs, apart from lack a belief in god. It is the complete opposite of religion, with its iron-clad belief systems.

Staling never said that "I am an atheist, and therfore I must do this because of my atheistic beliefs".
However, a terrorist would change "atheist" to "Islam" or "christianity" or "hinduism" and say that very sentence.

Simply put, Stalin never used atheism to justify his actions.

Stalin and Mao had their own ideas, which they imposed on the people. There have been several dictators with similar tendencies and extremely strong belief in god. Atheism has nothing to do with it.

However, religions (the ones that exist today, and have for thousands of years, not your hypothetical religion) by their nature, enforce certain beliefs which cannot be changed.

Your religion, as you understand it, is not as it is practiced by the majority of the people who follow it.
You say that you count the Wahabis as "corruption". Yet it is still part of that religion. If you start considering the parts that you don't agree with as "corruptions" nearly all religion would be a "corruption".

Also it is not up to me to prove to you that Islam is not violent or intolerant - that would be trying to prove something that does not exist, the burden of proof is upon you to prove to me that Islam is violent. My only condition to that - I only believe the Quran to be infallible, so I will not accept hadith as evidence. If you believe that subject is too inflammatory, then that is your choice, but I will treat it as a vindication of my claim that "Islam commands respect and tolerance of all men, beast and nature".

Ah, sorry Agno, I don't want to get into that...it gets unpleasant...trust me.

However, I will say this.....both the Wahabis and Taliban claim to have got their inspiration from the Quran.
Perhaps they are simply misusing the quran and misinterpreting it to justify their beliefs. But then., why would we want to give them that chance?

Why would we want to give them a chance to misunderstand a book, written in a difficult-to-understand dialect, as you say, which is deemed infallible?
This infallibility is the very reason why Taliban can justify its crimes to its people!

The concepts of humanity and equality can be just as easily be explained with a civics textbook, and be free from all misinterpretations too. Why not do that instead?

If the universe was created for the benefit of mankind, and mankind is to respect and nurture all that exists upon it, what is wrong with that?

What is wrong with it is the arrogance. Man didn't exist a million years ago. We must realize that man isn't the center of the universe. It leads to bad things, trust me.

We are going into a tangent of "god" arguments. I have already conceded that there may not be "logical scientific evidence" of God's existence. But that is not the point I am arguing - it is that belief in God somehow makes you vulnerable to rationalizing evil.

Ah. ok, sorry. I thought we were arguing about the existence of god.

See, belief in god per se has nothing evil about it. One can believe in a god who enforces no rules at all. Perfect. No fuss.

However, religion, as practiced and preached for as long as history can tell us, has been used to justify evil.

Actually, just before that argument I stated that I did believe that Islam commanded all of what I attributed to my hypothetical religion - and the offer to rebut that is open to you. But You are missing the point.
The atheists argue that religion and God cause all these problems, if that is true then belief in any religion or God would cause those problems, hence my hypothetical religion. My hypothetical religion has a God and it has a limited set of commandments that I detailed, so if the atheists are correct, then you have to rebut the argument I made in that post.

I am not clear about your hypothetical religion. Does it have heaven and hell?
What is its stand on sexuality and war? Who is incharge of "upholding the faith?".

A god with no baggage of beliefs, as I said, causes no problems. Unless, of course, atheism starts to be taught in schools...then the believers will have some strong objections.

Are you saying that a concept like "respect for all innocent life", as understood in common usage, excluding special circumstances (abortion etc), is going to forever be open to "doubt and disbelief"?

Yes, not forever, but for a long time to come it will be under discussion.

Ahh, see there you go again with the preconceived notions about religion. My religion commands no "enforcing by priests", and there is nothing wrong if children decide to follow a faith that commands "equality, respect and tolerance for man, beast and nature".

So, from what I understand, your religion is free from conversion problems....people can join and leave as they choose.

I can't really debate about your religion until you mention all of its basic tenets.

Till then, I will say that your religion seems to be fundamentally different from all Abrahmic faiths atleast.

 

[roadrunner]

So, from what I understand, your religion is free from conversion problems....people can join and leave as they choose.

Yup, they can.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I reiterate my point. All established religions in their true form are tricks played upon the gullible masses by a few smart and power-hungry men. Some who inherit these religions make it even worse. 'Pure unadulterated religion' is only a nice way to sugarcoat it. Nothing suits that description.

We can agree to disagree there then, since, as I asserted to SA, I do believe that Islam fits the description in being a religion that commands respect and tolerance for all, and I have yet to come across someone who has been able to show me how the Quran condones any of that which Islam detractors accuse it of.

So long as a book, and via the book the God herself, sanctions murder of a human under any circumstances that book cannot lay claim to have commanded tolerance, respect and equality.

As I have explained already, even US law allows for "murder in self defense", and I see no wrong in that. But that is another issue to debate, whether it is alright to just let yourself be killed, rather than defend yourself when attacked. I am no Gandhi, I will not turn the other cheek. If my life, my families life, my loved ones life is threatened, I will retaliate to protect them.

Nothing except the fact that in practical terms tolerance and respect for fellow beings are only extended upon submission or conversion. All pure unadulterated pious platitude about tolerance and respect for everybody remains only in theory - incorporated to help proselytize and more importantly gain legitimacy.

If you want to continue to use incorrect perceptions to make arguments then this discussion is going to go nowhere. You are welcome to show me why you believe the above to be true about Islam, as I mentioned to SA. As far as your assertion that it "remains only in theory" - my own life, my families life, and the lives of a lot of those nearest and dearest to me are proof that you are wrong.

The all powerful deity would have no need to create any religion.

She could instill morality, ethics and justice in every idiots head and be done with it rather than looking incompetent after making many versions of one religion and letting mere humans corrupt it - now she's got to take the blame for all evil in the name of corrupted religion(s) as well.

She 'let' them go corrupt her codes. So much evil has come to pass in her name that to provide any excuse or imaginary story for this behavior would be easily identified as - what else but yet another blind rationalisation of one's belief. After all she's infallible!

Now you know why they try to make pure unadulterated religion infallible. Men can keep spinning yarn about religion and divinity. The slaughter can always be blamed upon corruption!

Like I told SA, I am not trying to come up with arguments justifying the deities existence - but countering the assertion that "belief in God" causes rationalization of violence.

If the deity does not command her followers to commit violence, then why should she be blamed when some digress from her teachings and corrupt them for their own gain, power and prejudice? Mao and Stalin did not need "deities" or "religion" to commit their atrocities. Man himself is capable of such bigotry and hatred. The problem is man, not religion. Man corrupts, man pollutes, man kills -atheism, Maoism, Communism, religion or even Democracy (as the US has shown) - are all but convenient labels put on as cover.

If Allah is okay with men following any religion that commands "equality, respect and tolerance for man, beast and nature" why bother with introducing another religion called Islam ? Does that mean there wasn't any faith left standing on earth that commanded "equality, respect and tolerance for man, beast and nature" ?

Or is it yet another clever act - a rather round about way of saying "I dont object you having the chicken but you see I dont have any of it!". The approval doesn't matter anyway - not if its benefits are denied!

Again, the discussion is not why God does what he does, but showing that belief in religion causes rationalization of evil. I would say that since you cannot show belief in my hypothetical religion to cause a "rationalization of evil", then your premise is flawed - I would argue that the problem atheists have is not with "belief in religion or God" in general, but with specific religions, and as I said before - you are welcome to show me how the Quran commands any of what you claim is a "rationalization of evil".

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

SA:

It doesn't matter whether Stalin did something in the "name of atheism". The fact is that all atheism refers to is "no belief in God" - but it is true that Stalin was an atheist, and it is true that he committed atrocities, what that shows is that even people who do not believe in God can commit horrendous acts. So it is not exclusive to religion.

The issue is whether "belief in religion" can cause "rationalization of evil" - I came up with a hypothetical religion, perhaps I will declare myself a prophet and claim God told me so. Now prove to me how my religion as I outlined it can cause rationalization of evil. If you can't, the the issue is not religion, but "specific religions", or "specific interpretations of religions".

 

[Flintlock]

SA:

It doesn't matter whether Stalin did something in the "name of atheism". The fact is that all atheism refers to is "no belief in God" - but it is true that Stalin was an atheist, and it is true that he committed atrocities, what that shows is that even people who do not believe in God can commit horrendous acts. So it is not exclusive to religion.

Of course it matters. Because the very reason religion is dangerous because crooks use it to justify their crimes!!!

Your argument is akin to saying that Stalin "wore a moustache" and therfore he has proved that all moustache wearers are capable of committing these crimes.

I never said that horrendous acts are the exclusive domain of religious fanatics. However, a huge chunk of them are, and that is exactly what we are refering to. I think that much is quite clear from my posts.

The issue is whether "belief in religion" can cause "rationalization of evil" - I came up with a hypothetical religion, perhaps I will declare myself a prophet and claim God told me so. Now prove to me how my religion as I outlined it can cause rationalization of evil. If you can't, the the issue is not religion, but "specific religions", or "specific interpretations of religions".

If you could enumerate all the basic rules of your religion, perhaps I could start to answer your question.

I don't know anything about it apart from the fact that it has one god who teaches humanity and respect for all. I.E., the whole thing can be described in 3 sentences.
Also, you said it has no priests, and it doesn't practice conversion. Any other details you want to reveal ?

 

[Flintlock]

Agno, the devil as they say, lies in the details.
Unless you tell me something more about your perfect hypothetical religion with no priests and no conversion and respect for all humanity, I can't 'point out the faults and loopholes.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Of course it matters. Because the very reason religion is dangerous because crooks use it to justify their crimes!!!

Your argument is akin to saying that Stalin "wore a moustache" and therfore he has proved that all moustache wearers are capable of committing these crimes.

I never said that horrendous acts are the exclusive domain of religious fanatics. However, a huge chunk of them are, and that is exactly what we are refering to. I think that much is quite clear from my posts.

Funny thing about the mustache part - a lot of people make that very assumption about men with beards and turbans.

You are making a fallacious argument, that because X number of people do something, that means that justifies generalizing and saying that it is religion that is the problem. Perhaps a huge chunk of crimes are committed in the name of religion because people who follow religion outnumber atheists by such a huge margin.

If you could enumerate all the basic rules of your religion, perhaps I could start to answer your question.

I don't know anything about it apart from the fact that it has one god who teaches humanity and respect for all. I.E., the whole thing can be described in 3 sentences.
Also, you said it has no priests, and it doesn't practice conversion. Any other details you want to reveal ?

I take from your comments that you are, for the moment, sticking with your assertion that it is "belief in any religion or God" that allows for a "rationalization of evil"?

AS far as my "religion" goes, thats basically it. As more complex situations emerge I'll get with my "theological council" and determine how my religion fits in, and what it commands.

You see, part of the problem is also that people think religion does not allow for debate and discussion over what exactly to do in situations that have no specific commandments referring to them. At that point it is the responsibility of people and scholars to engage in discourse to determine how "respect and tolerance for man, beast and nature" can be applied to a dynamic and fast changing world. The process that we would then go through is quite similar to what the atheist would go through - rationalization and reasoning, and just as atheists like Stalin and Mao came up with twisted perverted conclusions from their flawed reasoning process, so do certain believers, who then do the same thing Stalin and Mao did.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agno, the devil as they say, lies in the details.
Unless you tell me something more about your perfect hypothetical religion with no priests and no conversion and respect for all humanity, I can't 'point out the faults and loopholes.

Not really, the overarching principles of my religion, as I also believe are those in the Quran, are what I have stated, every other "detail" is subject to the "overarching philosophy". I cannot go outside of its bounds.

An example in the Quran is of those verse that I quoted, in whose beginning conditions are laid out commanding that "hostilities must only be begun in self defense, and when your enemy attacks you first". A lot of Islam bashers will ignore those conditions that govern hostilities, and cherry pick "details" that serve their purpose of showing Islam as "violent".
Do you see where I am going? If there is another verse in the Quran, that may not state those conditions as explicitly as they are here, those commands would still be subject to these "overarching conditions".

 

[Flintlock]

Funny thing about the mustache part - a lot of people make that very assumption about men with beards and turbans.
.

Well, obviously the assumption is that most terrorists are fanatic muslims, fanatic muslims have to wear beards, therfore anyone with an islamic beard is suspect!!

Its obviously a crude generalization, but its better than nothing!!

Stalin's moustache, on the other hand, like his atheism, didn't contribute anything to his ideology.


.

You are making a fallacious argument, that because X number of people do something, that means that justifies generalizing and saying that it is religion that is the problem. Perhaps a huge chunk of crimes are committed in the name of religion because people who follow religion outnumber atheists by such a huge margin. .

Perhaps then we should look relative figures.

Countries with largely atheistic populations have better standards of living than religious societies...Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Japan, Switzerland, New Zealand, France....and much lower crime rates!!

Most Nobel Prize winners, and indeed most influential people (in the positive sense) aren't very religious at all....


.

I take from your comments that you are, for the moment, sticking with your assertion that it is "belief in any religion or God" that allows for a "rationalization of evil"?.

I am saying that belief in any of the established religions can potentially lead to what you call "rationalization of evil".

Lets face it, civil society is unnatural. Men commit crimes very easily and modern society can disintegrate into chaos at the drop of a pin. Why should we give it more and more reasons to do so, by encouraging belief in superstition?

.

AS far as my "religion" goes, thats basically it. As more complex situations emerge I'll get with my "theological council" and determine how my religion fits in, and what it commands. .

There has been no successful religion ever, in the history of man, without a system of conversion/protection and concentration of power!! Right
from the primitive african paganism to the supposedly advanced Christianity or Islam.

In effect, your so called "religion" isn't a religion at all, but just an idea, like the millions of other ideas floating aroung in peoples' minds!!

Also, there hasn't been a single working religion without a set of predifined ground rules, so that a clear distinction can be made between "us" and "them", between the tribe and the enemy.

Additionally, I can see that you are trying to create a watered-down version of Islam by picking and choosing the parts you like and discarding the ones you don't. I like your optimism and hope, but sadly, that isn't how things work out in the real world. Religion is inextricably mired in politics and power, and will continue to do so if we treat religion as a public matter rather than a private one.


.

You see, part of the problem is also that people think religion does not allow for debate and discussion over what exactly to do in situations that have no specific commandments referring to them. At that point it is the responsibility of people and scholars to engage in discourse to determine how "respect and tolerance for man, beast and nature" can be applied to a dynamic and fast changing world. The process that we would then go through is quite similar to what the atheist would go through - rationalization and reasoning, and just as atheists like Stalin and Mao came up with twisted perverted conclusions from their flawed reasoning process, so do certain believers, who then do the same thing Stalin and Mao did.

Then whats is kosher and what isn't? How do you distinguish the followers from the unbelievers?

Your religion is so vague that no theologian would consider it separate way of thinking.

Basically, it can be definded as a weak and watered down version of Humanism with a belief in a featureless creator who basically does nothing else...in effect....what is called deism.

 

[Flintlock]

Not really, the overarching principles of my religion, as I also believe are those in the Quran, are what I have stated, every other "detail" is subject to the "overarching philosophy". I cannot go outside of its bounds..

In that case, I can't define your so called religion as anything other than humanism mixed with deism. Just a philosophy, hardly a religion.

.

An example in the Quran is of those verse that I quoted, in whose beginning conditions are laid out commanding that "hostilities must only be begun in self defense, and when your enemy attacks you first". A lot of Islam bashers will ignore those conditions that govern hostilities, and cherry pick "details" that serve their purpose of showing Islam as "violent".
Do you see where I am going? If there is another verse in the Quran, that may not state those conditions as explicitly as they are here, those commands would still be subject to these "overarching conditions".

Yes, I can see that your understanding of the book is perhaps a lot more nuanced and superior to the fundamentalists' understanding of it.

There are a few questions I would like to ask you:

1. Is Islam compatible with democracy?
2. Does the quran make the burkha compulsory?
3. What does the quran say about science? Some people say that the quran has pre-empted scientific discoveries. Is that true?

Perhaps, you should put aside your own understanding of the book, and listen to what the Wahabis and Deobandis and Taliban have to say.
Obviously they too read the book, and came to entirely different conclusions!!
Then maybe we can try to understand why the came to those conclusions!!
You might just find that the Quran is a little less unambiguous than you think!!

Also, wishing away the hadiths won't make them go away in reality!! They are a part of Islam and will remain so for a long time!!

The devil lies in the minute details!! Always!!
What the Shias and Sunnis kills each other over? Minute details!!