News Stories

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Kirarakim

People seem to be confusing Muslim and Arab on here.

Yep, it makes it easier to hate if you can't tell them apart.

Muslim is the new Jew, aka new scapegoat, which apparently caused all the world's evil. The additional benefit to this kind of bigotry, is that now one can blame Jews for inspiring Islam, and since they're all in the Middle East origin, you get a 3 for 1 bigotry deal. Brilliant.

It's kinda like if a minority robs someone, it suddenly will be used to reinforce certain ideas, but if not, then it's just a thief.

When I was younger, I used to think that all the Abrahamic religions were the bad stuff because they were responsible for so much conflict and oppression. Until I realized that the members of them contained a large amount of humans-- that's what they really have in common, and thus it is actually humans are the real scum. If one wants to really vanquish evil and direct their fear against a group, then endeavor to wipe out humanity-- starting with oneself, of course. Wiping out every Muslim won't get rid of terrorism. But wiping out every human being will. Is that what we want?

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

This is silly. Regardless of how you try to quibble over whether Islamic texts make it easier to justify violent conquest or not, the fact remains that early and medieval Christians were just as able to use Christianity as a justification for expansionist military conquests as Islam was able to. Christianity didn't go from obscure cult to one of the most dominant religions on the planet by playing nice.

The reason Islam produces so many terrorists today is because the theological center of the Muslim world is a fragmented mess left over from colonialism.

You're completely right (I've acknowledged this from the start). I don't think Islam produces so many terrorists simply because it's Islam. It's obviously for the reasons you stated, but, hey, I'm still allowed to ponder the concept that being an adherent of Islam may make it easier to justify violence if you're already predisposed to it, like I've said all along.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

You're completely right (I've acknowledged this from the start). I don't think Islam produces so many terrorists simply because it's Islam. It's obviously for the reasons you stated, but, hey, I'm still allowed to ponder the concept that being an adherent of Islam may make it easier to justify violence if you're already predisposed to it, like I've said all along.

look at the IRA, Lookup the history of the Thirty Year War. religion is just a excuse.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

look at the IRA, Lookup the history of the Thirty Year War. religion is just a excuse.

It's always an excuse. I don't really think any conflict has been undertaken solely for religious reasons; not even the Muslim Conquests, not even the Crusades. There are always underlying reasons, usually economic, or, at the very least, simply a desire for increased power and influence, which I don't think any religion endorses.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

It's always an excuse. I don't really think any conflict has been undertaken solely for religious reasons; not even the Muslim Conquests, not even the Crusades. There are always underlying reasons, usually economic, or, at the very least, simply a desire for increased power and influence, which I don't think any religion endorses.

i didn't entirely address your main point.

Islam isn't any more easier to justify violence then Christianity or any other religion.
the fact of the matter is that, it doesn't matter what religion it is. people will do what they want to.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

i didn't entirely address your main point.

Islam is any more easier to justify violence then Christianity or any other religion.
the fact of the matter is that, it doesn't matter what religion it is. people will do what they want to.

We are in complete agreement on that one, for better or worse. I always found it funny how when the Anglo Saxons were first converted, they interpreted Jesus as a warrior who defeated the cross to rise from the dead. Fits much better for them than what is actually said in the Bible.

It doesn't matter in the end, I'm aware of that. I just think that Islam does kind of have this element where the prophet himself led the conquest of a city. It might be an easier rallying cry, but obviously, what the holy text even says is irrelevant, so I guess it's a moot point.

[ganbaru]

Kerry says doubling U.S. non-lethal aid to Syrian opposition
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93K00220130421

Analysis: Keep calm and carry on in India's slumping car market
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93G15T20130417

[Ridwan]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Okay, but you're not really making any effort to dispute the point I brought up about conquest and Muhammad. 'That's all there is to it' works when a parent scolds his child for misbehaving, not in an academic style discussion.



You read my post, so you should know that I don't think the presence of extremists in and of itself is any reason to conclude the religion has 'natural violent tendencies.' My point was it might be easier to justify your violent actions when you look at something like Muhammad conquering Mecca as your inspiration when compared to, say, Christianity, where Jesus never conquered anything.



Yes. My idea was that perhaps Islam, as a religion, makes it easier to justify violent resistance. NOT that Islam is inherently violent, not that it's evil, but that IF one wanted to justify their violent actions, it seems to me to be easier to point directly to concepts like Jihad and the conquest of Mecca to gather inspiration. You can definitely still do it with Christianity or Buddhism, but you've got to be a bit more roundabout in doing so.

I didn't address the whole origin thing because that is not relevant. Regardless of how christianity came to be, there still were violent crusades done in its name, which was instrumental in soldifying christianity's hold over Europe. While Islam spread mostly peacefully world wide, with historical forced-conversion efforts being all localized affair. Saying Islam makes it easier to justify violent resistance is the same as saying it is inherently violent, since in the end people can bend pretty much everything to suit their interests in times and places. What about Reconquista then ? It succeeded after all. How is Islam any more practical as violent resistant ideology then christianity ? It's never about canonical tenets, which parts of you can always modify or ignore to suit your interests. It's about the human factor and the situation they're in, in other words, how people utilize and organize any resource at their disposal to meet the challenges they're facing.

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by aohige

Whoa, hold it there. You believe in a magic man in the clouds, you're clearly not sane.

I'm sane coz I'm no radical you, you... human!

[Ridwan]

Seeing how the majority of the world is religious for much of human history, it's an endless wonder how civilization and intellectual ferment, both of which require logical thinking, ever happen in the first place.

[SaintessHeart]

Moderation and understanding. An attempt to understand another group of people through their religion can yield interesting results.

[Ridwan]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Moderation and understanding. An attempt to understand another group of people through their religion can yield interesting results.

But but but RELIJUN !!!! O:

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ridwan

But but but RELIJUN !!!! O:

YES RELIGION IS A SCOURGE!

BURN DOWN ALL THE CHURCHES, TEMPLES AND MOSQUES!

CASTRATE INSTEAD OF CIRCUMCISION SO THEIR BAD GENES DON'T PASS DOWN!

HANG ALL IMAMS, ARCHDEACONS AND HEAD MONKS!

[/sarcasm]

Ahem. Back on topic.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ridwan

Seeing how the majority of the world is religious for much of human history, it's an endless wonder how civilization and intellectual ferment, both of which require logical thinking, ever happen in the first place.

Human progress takes baby steps.

Alchemy is bullshit; but without Alchemy we would never have Chemistry. Without people thinking there are things that exist which we can't see, we would never have Imaginary numbers and Quantum Mechanics.

Humanity get things wrong all the time, and will keep getting things wrong. But if we don't try we wouldn't get anywhere. Creation myths are a bunch of baloney, but without them humanity would never have bothered to wonder how the universe worked. Just because our ancestors have less to work with doesn't mean they shouldn't have tried to understand the world.

What IS the problem, is those who think anything that is old is automatically better than anything that is new. Now, it works in reverse too, in that you can't discount old wisdom. But the fact is too many people have the mistaken belief that anything that is traditional is infallible.

People used to die in their 30's. Together with limited and controlled access to information, organised religion was once able to update themselves to modern standards and claim they never changed anything. In this way, religion is able to be progressive while lie to their followers that they were doing what their ancestors had always done.

You can't do that now; too much info has become widely available. The Catholic Church can't just stealthily decide that contraception has always been acceptable. The same way they stealthily decided the Pagan Winter Solstice is now the Birthday of Jesus. If only they went back to the good old days when the holy book was in Latin and most people can't read it...

[Ridwan]

I wasn't being serious. My point is that religion being an archaic relic that opposes progress is one humongous oversimplification. But what you say is true. Though instinctive conservatism is an integral part of human nature, and will always be around.

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by Ridwan

My point is that religion being an archaic relic that opposes progress is one humongous oversimplification.

Opposes progress? I thought the Church saved Civilization from barbaric idiots that attack the Roman Empire....

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by GenjiChan

Opposes progress? I thought the Church saved Civilization from barbaric idiots that attack the Roman Empire....

I remember once hearing the excuse that religion is pro-science because "most Middle Ages European researchers were Christian". This of course showed how ignorant people can be, as being Christian isn't optional back then. Being a heretic gets you killed. More importantly all the libraries were under Church control so if you want to read, study or publish, you had to at least pretend to be religious.

The Church didn't save science or knowledge; the Church simply had a monopoly on information, and as such only sanctioned science was permitted.

[Ridwan]

More like, religion isn't particularly anti or pro science. European christendom is rather unique in that there was a body with colossal monopoly over intellectuality. The whole anti-science stuff also has never been about an actual anti-science stance. Still, in regards to the extent of polarization over the issue, Western civilization has had no match.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I remember once hearing the excuse that religion is pro-science because "most Middle Ages European researchers were Christian". This of course showed how ignorant people can be, as being Christian isn't optional back then. Being a heretic gets you killed. More importantly all the libraries were under Church control so if you want to read, study or publish, you had to at least pretend to be religious.

The Church didn't save science or knowledge; the Church simply had a monopoly on information, and as such only sanctioned science was permitted.

Well, for good or ill, the Church gathered resources from all over and sunk them into things which had no immediate uses. We wouldn't be where we are if every peasant back then hadn't given to the Church instead of making sure they had enough to last the winter.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Well, for good or ill, the Church gathered resources from all over and sunk them into things which had no immediate uses. We wouldn't be where we are if every peasant back then hadn't given to the Church instead of making sure they had enough to last the winter.

I have a feeling the tithe isn't exactly spent on science to any great extent. There is a reason the Papal States got burned down by angry Italians.

And if peasants have enough to last the winter, they would be able to do their own science. Remember that the Church didn't fund the Renaissance; the Medici did. Galileo had the Medici to thank for paying his bills. A family of foreign exchange traders.