Quote:
Originally Posted by sneaker
@willx
So if the "Koran condones violence against non-believers" (which is an belittlement in itself) and the believers follow that, it has nothing to do with religion?
If "only written documents" matter, it has nothing to do with religion, like the Pope has nothing to do with the Catholic religion?
If their ulterior motives are "religious states" (meaning that all people have to object themselves to religious laws) it has nothing to do with religion?
|
Well, I'd tell you to read my previous post but I deleted it because I was -rep'd, called a "loon" and a "religious apologist" -- but Uruz 7 seemed to at least partially understand my point in responding to his post point by point and critically dissecting the arguments and statements was to specifically address the fact that he was
not criticizing religion as a whole, but specifically criticizing only Islam. Please don't take my posts out of context.
So let me address each and every single one of your criticisms and comments:
1) [So if the "Koran condones violence against non-believers" (which is an belittlement in itself) and the believers follow that, it has nothing to do with religion?] -> So do other religions,
my point was that it had nothing to do with Islam. I'd also add that non-religious ideologies, although many don't outright condone or encourage violence, could be implied to permit it due to lack of human interest or moral compass. Other nationalistic ideologies or philosophies specifically espoused slavery or subjugation of other nations, societies and people.
2) [If "only written documents" matter, it has nothing to do with religion, like the Pope has nothing to do with the Catholic religion?] -> My point here was specifically:
The interests and motives of those that lead organized religions and religious states in the middle east usually have nothing to do with religion and are due to secular concerns. They want to have and/or keep their power. They have very human and very complex motivations that have a long history, some of which may be valid and some of which may be not.
3) [If their ulterior motives are "religious states" (meaning that all people have to object themselves to religious laws) it has nothing to do with religion?] -> I assume you mean "subject" themselves. This is the one comment I have the least to refute with.. simply because I find it hard to believe you
really think that the only motive behind attempts at establishing religious states is actually religion? Seriously? How many of the Saudi royal family do you think abide by sharia law? Power, wealth, anger, hate, envy and jealousy -- not motives enough? Do you really think the elite members of these societies are really that devout and are driven utterly by faith?
Now, I don't know if you were the one that thought I was a religious apologist or a loon or whatnot, but I'm personally a secular humanist .. I personally dislike religion due to the simple fact that I don't like any "school of thought" that encourages a halt to intellectual curiosity and encourages "faith" However, I believe that before anyone starts making comments on religion or other people's beliefs, I believe first and foremost in thoroughly understanding topics and forming rational and logical arguments. I have mixed (not really) feelings being subject to vitriol for encouraging moderation..