South Carolina’s state government has been opening the governor’s Covid-19 press conference each day with prayer... and ignoring constitutional questions... I keep asking myself if they realize that if an omnipotent creator god exists, that it created this virus too and has a purpose for it, so what good will it do to pray to it to stop it?Do corona viruses have a god?
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Is it a satanic virus?
But was Satan created by god...or is he us? This shit is hard.....
It's the fault of Fergie. He sold a virus in the end to Real Madrid. He said he won't sell the virus but in the end he sold it.
This is one of my biggest issues with religion. Religious people mostly claim that any form of extremism in the name of religion has nothing to do with „normal“ religious people. It‘s frequently just brushed aside usually adding a comment like „but look at the great things religion does“.
Let‘s face it, most religious people feel personally offended if you criticize anything. And because there are usually not many factual counter arguments available, the discussion dies before it could take off.
You rightfully mentioned Myanmar‘s genocide and the involvement of Buddhist monks a few posts back. Unfortunately it just died there, because of the argument of the few bad apples. There is plenty of literature about violent history of Buddhists. Look for Peter Lehr or Michael Zimmermann.
You cannot claim to not be part of the problem if the official writings or official leaders of your religion have repeatedly supported extremism, genocide, oppression and many other things „normal“ religious people may or may not find offensive and dangerous.
Please explain, I‘ll try my best to understand.
Last edited:
My only problem with religion is that usually it is a mandatory subject at most schools in the world. Why not make it just an option for the students to choose whether they want to learn or not ?
Cheers for the virus God. Ya cnut.
It shouldn't be taught at school, full stop, not even optional (unless it is part of the history course, when it can be explained as religion in symbiosis with history and culture).
Then how would children learn about billions of people in the world that hold particular ideologies? Religious studies isn't learning to read the Quran or giving your soul to Jesus Christ. It's about opening your eyes to how others live and behave. Atheists love their censorship I'll give you that. MAGA (Make Atheists Great Again).
He literally says that it should be "as religion in symbiosis with history and culture". MRCGA (Make Reading Comprehension Great Again).Then how would children learn about billions of people in the world that hold particular ideologies? Religious studies isn't learning to read the Quran or giving your soul to Jesus Christ. It's about opening your eyes to how others live and behave. Atheists love their censorship I'll give you that. MAGA (Make Atheists Great Again).
History of religion implies a past event which pretty much isn't in keeping with the world today. Thankfully I went to school so can tell the difference.
There were no, and never will be, a curriculum for 'Culture' as a stand alone subject. Try again.
He wasn't suggesting that culture was a subject. If you really want to deliberately misunderstand the poster's point then feel free to suggest that Atheists as a homogenous group "love censorship".History of religion implies a past event which pretty much isn't in keeping with the world today. Thankfully I went to school so can tell the difference.
There were no, and never will be, a curriculum for 'Culture' as a stand alone subject. Try again.
The suggestion was that religion should be taught within the context of history (which, due to you declared schooling, you are aware is the study of the past) and culture, that is the concepts not specific subjects, rather than as specific religions taught as fact. Which is what you also said.
Insert irritating smiley here.
I don't mean to be facetious (any longer), but why is religion to be consigned to history when it is a forever evolving current event in the world today? Should math also be consigned to history as that is a forever evolving phenomena that had its discoveries in the past? Or languages? In fact anything?
Religion is around us and needs to be explained as something relevant now. There shouldn't be any fear around doing this because as we all know fear breeds hatred.
Nobody said it should be consigned to history. Hence the use teaching about religion in the context of culture. To be explicit, the belief systems in current culture.
I'm pretty sure that is what you're advocating and your point about only teaching about religions in history was never made in this conversation.
The beliefs of people, including religions, philosophies and political ideologies, is of course both important and fascinating to learn about and discuss. No-one said otherwise and it is certainly not an "athiest" position to advocate to the contrary. It is not even an atheist position to prevent the teaching of a particular religion (especially if you are liberal, in the non US sense) as a fact in schools although as a secularist I object strongly to any such curriculum.
You're debating with your own imaginary position.
Yep I think we agree. As for who I'm debating with, I replied to Revan directly. I would suggest you see his words so we can conclude.
It should be taught and every major religion should be taught without any bias against them. Religion is a very misunderstood thing. People of every ilk use it to push their own agenda. If most of us understood it in its purest form there would be a lot less of misunderstanding in this world.
I agree utterly with you first sentence but I'm not sure what you mean by "in its purest form"? I imagine you mean the central philosophies of the religions before they are interpreted (perhaps corrupted or used?) by people but I'm not sure that there really us a purest form in that sense of, at least, the Abrahamic religions is there?
I saw in its purest form I mean the basics and not what is being reported or written by certain people from all ages. I think it is particularly important to the three Abrahamic religions. The Jews had The Torah and the Talmud. The Christians The Old Testament and then the Bible. The Muslims, The Quran and the Hadhiths. If you take all the three originals and keep the three written commentary or sayings out it then it becomes a much more balanced teaching. The issues of religion mostly comes not from the Torah, The Old Testament or the Quran.
I pretty much agree with everything Fingeredmouse said. Totally okay to study the religion in context with history and culture (considering that it has played a large part on shaping both). Definitely against studying religion in isolation, and its dogma. Teachers should be historians and sociologists (regardless of their religion), not people who have a primary religion education (priests etc).
I'm not sure what you mean by "not on what is being reported or written by certain people from all ages". The texts you refer to have multiple authors, translators and editors even from their time of origin.
The basics of the Old Testament, for instance, are not very basic nor, really, reflective of what most people would consider to be core tenets of Christianity. It's a bloody fascinating, richly brilliant and, with the right translation, a beautifully written book. It is also wildly contradictory, contains multiple Gods, completely bizarre and often repellant at points and is, thankfully, not representative of mainstream Christianity and its philosophies(at least I hope not!).
Getting kids studying these texts and their origins and developments is a brilliant idea but that very much is the history, as per @Dumbstar 's point, and not current beliefs and views.
It's obvious that you can't teach it to them to conform to them. It's just knowledge. If you look at other religions too they use the other books I mentioned as the prime source. Look at Islam too. A lot of these Sheikhs use the Hadiths to promote their views but in reality they should not use it for such purposes.
I think all religions teach to be good in its purest form. Man made it worse and the more time it goes the worse mankind become. Look at Isis and Al Qaeda. They claim they are doing it for religion yet it's nothing of that sort. It's pure murder. The Buddhist killings in Myanmar and some religious killings in Africa too.
I think all religions teach to be good in its purest form. Man made it worse and the more time it goes the worse mankind become. Look at Isis and Al Qaeda. They claim they are doing it for religion yet it's nothing of that sort. It's pure murder. The Buddhist killings in Myanmar and some religious killings in Africa too.
Absolutely agree with you on all points. I just think it's hard to educate about religion without discussing specific interpretations.
To use the OT again, I'd imagine most would say that turning the other cheek, forgiveness and kindness were core Christian values but the OT is, to put it mildly, wrathful. So to teach about Christianity you need to discuss interpretation.
I'm not sure you could claim Al Qaeda are irreligious just because their interpretation is vile. Surely they are true believers in their truth as much as any religious grouping?
Of course it depends on their interpretation but in reality it's not what the Quran teaches that they follow. A simple thing like infidels. The Christians and the Jews are not infidels according to the Quran. The point is that people are interpreting for their own purposes.
The Christian right is also doing the same thing. They support Israel not because of the Jews but because they want armegedon and the site is supposed to be in Israel. So if they believe in their prophecy Israel will cease to exist as a Jewish majority state.
All books are for that particular time and should be taken in context.
It's a very interesting subject to discuss with like minded people who have an open mind and not biased against any religion.
The Christian right is also doing the same thing. They support Israel not because of the Jews but because they want armegedon and the site is supposed to be in Israel. So if they believe in their prophecy Israel will cease to exist as a Jewish majority state.
All books are for that particular time and should be taken in context.
It's a very interesting subject to discuss with like minded people who have an open mind and not biased against any religion.
Good post.
No that's already been done to death by everyone else, but Muhammed actually led a polar opposite life to Christ and Buddha, so it's actually fair enough to read his life story and say "is this really a guy who should be emulated? Since Muhuammed is called the best of muslims who should be emulated. ". Anyway im told this is the wrong thread for this, so we can countinue the discussion in the Religion - what's the point the thread. You can also read the biograghy of Muhammed yourself and make up your own mind about it.
The thing is, If Christians had just gotten as far as getting the Thou shall not kill part, they be closer to getting their religion right. Apart from declaring us the kings of the jews, if christians lived according to jesus christ then the world would have been a lot better place. If you simply read the life of the prophet Muhammed who is the iconof 1.8 billion people and who is said to the best of all humans and best of all humans who every muslim should emulate it becomes pretty fecking important how he actually led his life. So when he actually directly or indirectly was reponsible for the death of a lot of people, the destruction of all other religions, enslaving people and trading enslaved women and children for his, and having slaves of his own and chose barbaric punishment for crimes, then you've got a pretty huge problem when 1.8 billion people elevate this person to hold the highest divine authourity in the history of mankind.
With Siddharta Gautama there isn't really much dirt on him. The main critism you can make is that in some of his teachings, he describes a female rebirth to be lower than a male rebirth. I take this mainly to mean that it has historically been more unfortuntate to be woman in human history because women have almost everywhere until recently in the 20th and 21st been oppressed by the men and there havn't been gender equality. In the 21st century western world, I don't think this difference applies.
And what is morbid about developing a critique against religions that seek political power and dominion over everyone one else? Is there inherently anything more morbid or wrong than being anti-islamist than being anti-maoist? What's the difference for you? If Muslims want to prove they are tolerant they could start with promoting freedom of religion in their muslim majority countries where it is prohibited. And in Denmark anyone public figure who is a vocal critic of Islam basically has to be live under police protection. That is a pretty damn severe problem.
Last edited:
@Shamana it is clear you don't like Islam, that's fair as you are not alone. In fact from your posts Islam seems to anger you slightly. You will disagree with these words and will write paragraphs why what I just said is wrong. That's ok too, we don't all agree on everything.
I just wanted to check that you think "1.8 billion" people (and growing fast, not just because of births but unforced conversions too) are brainwashed in the incorrect understanding of Islam that you've chosen to adopt as (pun) gospel? If so, then all I can offer is that you have a lot more to learn. I mean lifetimes' worth of learning. Remember Buddhism is all about enlightenment, which means learning and understanding the truth no matter how painful or indigestible. Not closed mindedness.
If, as an open minded (real) Buddhist, you do wish to achieve enlightenment then you don't need to venture into the villages of Bangladesh or deserts of Africa to find a shaman. Just walk into any Western country hospital and ask a Muslim bearded or hijabed doctor why s/he practices Islam? Or a university where one may be teaching advanced mathematics or sciences. They will all be able to help you become more enlightened. I promise they won't use a breast watch to hypnotise and brainwash you.
I just wanted to check that you think "1.8 billion" people (and growing fast, not just because of births but unforced conversions too) are brainwashed in the incorrect understanding of Islam that you've chosen to adopt as (pun) gospel? If so, then all I can offer is that you have a lot more to learn. I mean lifetimes' worth of learning. Remember Buddhism is all about enlightenment, which means learning and understanding the truth no matter how painful or indigestible. Not closed mindedness.
If, as an open minded (real) Buddhist, you do wish to achieve enlightenment then you don't need to venture into the villages of Bangladesh or deserts of Africa to find a shaman. Just walk into any Western country hospital and ask a Muslim bearded or hijabed doctor why s/he practices Islam? Or a university where one may be teaching advanced mathematics or sciences. They will all be able to help you become more enlightened. I promise they won't use a breast watch to hypnotise and brainwash you.
Exactly. During my RE (religious education) lessons at secondary school in the south east of England we were taught about Hindus and Muslims and very rarely had any bible lessons.Then how would children learn about billions of people in the world that hold particular ideologies? Religious studies isn't learning to read the Quran or giving your soul to Jesus Christ. It's about opening your eyes to how others live and behave. Atheists love their censorship I'll give you that. MAGA (Make Atheists Great Again).
The lessons were about educating us about different cultures rather than brainwashing us with religious texts.
my RE lessons were an ulta conservative christian telling us we have to accept jesus or we go to hell and brief summaries of other religions, kinda dull tbh
...and no-one objects to such lessons where cultures and beliefs are taught as this thread demonstrates and the numerous posts following this initial post detail.
I probably think i would get a lot of different answers, im not under the illusion that the vast majority of muslims in the world are hidden Isis or Al-Queda supporters, but I think if i walked about asking random looking Arabs why they practice they would probably ask why the hell i care.@Shamana it is clear you don't like Islam, that's fair as you are not alone. In fact from your posts Islam seems to anger you slightly. You will disagree with these words and will write paragraphs why what I just said is wrong. That's ok too, we don't all agree on everything.
I just wanted to check that you think "1.8 billion" people (and growing fast, not just because of births but unforced conversions too) are brainwashed in the incorrect understanding of Islam that you've chosen to adopt as (pun) gospel? If so, then all I can offer is that you have a lot more to learn. I mean lifetimes' worth of learning. Remember Buddhism is all about enlightenment, which means learning and understanding the truth no matter how painful or indigestible. Not closed mindedness.
If, as an open minded (real) Buddhist, you do wish to achieve enlightenment then you don't need to venture into the villages of Bangladesh or deserts of Africa to find a shaman. Just walk into any Western country hospital and ask a Muslim bearded or hijabed doctor why s/he practices Islam? Or a university where one may be teaching advanced mathematics or sciences. They will all be able to help you become more enlightened. I promise they won't use a breast watch to hypnotise and brainwash you.
I know someone else had answered you but let me try it too.
In my opinion you have got the wrong end of the stick.
Yes every Muslim would say he is the best man and they are correct in their opinion. But on the other hand what is written about him may not be all correct. And it's a fact that some hadeeth or his sayings people quote now are pure fabrications.
As for slavery he didn't have any slaves. It was this that led to his clash with the Meccans. They didn't mind him trying to teach a new religion. But they very much minded when he started preaching that all mankind are equal. Because that led to their slaves joining the new religion.
Let's look at the deaths you quote. Apart from one instance where he is supposed to pass the death penalty on the males of one tribe, there is nothing to show he put anyone else to the sword. Even this the decision was made by another Arab, under whose protection they lived. According to the custom of those days it was done in this manner.
The Arab conquests started after him.
You can't blame the religion for it. The same way you can't blame Jesus for the Inquisition or the forceful conversion to Christianity of non Christians.
You can't blame Buddha for the genocide of the Rohingya by the Burmese or Moses of the persecution of the Palestinians by the Israelis.
As for the religious freedom, yes in Islam there is no compulsion in religion.
This is why I repeatedly say it's not the religion itself but people who make all the problems in religious interpretation. Let's look at non Muslims under a Muslim government in those days. They are free to practice their religion. Yes they pay a tax. But this tax eliminate them from military service. The Muslims have to fight while non Muslims are not obliged to fight. That didn't stop a lot of non Muslims fighting in the Arab army.
Now look at today. A few Muslim countries do not allow religious freedom. To be honest I think it's about 3 or 4 countries only that doesn't allow. But this is not a religious issue. This is a political issue.
There are many Muslim political leaders. Pakistan had one. Bangladesh has been having one for a very long time. Indonesia the largest Muslim country had one. There are many others too.
An Arab from Saudi is very much different from an Arab from Jordan. Even the way they speak is different. It's like saying a white Canadian from Quebec is the same as a white man/woman from France is the same. To someone who doesn't speak French they look the same and speak French. But in reality they may look the same but officially they may speak French but many times they don't understand each other.
It's not the religion per se is the issue. It's us, the humans who created divisions and mayhem in this world.
What are your sources that Muhammed didn't carry out these sentences and that he didn't have slaves? In the sealed nectar by Safieru-rahman which was awared first prize as the best biography of Muhammed by the muslim world league, it is mentioned several times than he had slaves. His clash with the meccans wasn't about slaves at all it was that he preached that there is no God but Allah and denigrated idoltary which did not gell with the polytheists.
Again what your sources?
I quote directly where Muhammed was generous enough to free his slaves 1 day before his death when he conviently didn't need them anymore. "On Sunday, a day before his death, the prophet freed his slaves, donated in charity the seven dinars, which he owned, and gifted his weapon to the Muslims."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml
Sahih Al-Bukhari 1/99
Sahih Al-Bukhari 1/98,99.
Regarding the jewish tribe ""He jugded that all the able-bodied male belonging to the tribe should be put to death, the women and children taken as prisoners, and their wealth divided among the muslim fighters." page 425. in the same chapter it is mentioned that females captives were sent to Najd to be bartered for horses and weaponry.
Last edited:
@Shamana ana are you Buddhist or Atheist?
I am believing buddhist, no longer a practicing one. What difference does it make to you?
This is the exact point I am making. Just because Buhari said something it may not be the absolute truth.
There is a debate going on among Islamic scholars about these things.
In this instance if you know detail history it is Saud ibn Muad under whose protection they lived made the decision for all male adults to be executed. Furthermore, they already had an agreement among both parties to support each other and not to support the enemies of each other. This was broken and hence the punishment of death to all adult males.
Violence is not religious. Violence is by people. The same way I would never think either Buddha, Moses, Jesus or Mohammed is responsible for any ill treatment of violence.
Nothing. From the other thread I thought that you are atheist, and here saw another poster calling you a Buddhist. So just curiosity.
I am sorry, but this is hard to swallow. Judaism and Islam are quite violent religions, with Islam having build over violence. Muhammad was a warlord, there is no other way of putting it. He build armies, he fought wars, and in those wars thousands were killed. He unified a part of the Arabia by wars.
Sure, the Arab spread happened after his death. But let’s not forget that it was Abu Bakr who unified Arabia. He was Muhammad’s most trusted lieutenant, a person admired in Islam, and (if I am not mistaken, have been a long time since I read about these things), one of the 10 people who were guaranteed to reach heaven. Under his successor (another venerated ally of Muhammad), Arabs defeated the Romans and the Persians. With Arabs being the aggressors in both fronts.
So, let’s not pretend that the wars were somehow misinterpreted from Muslims and the religion is not to be blamed, when it was Muhammad and his successors who actually lead those wars (if I am not mistaken, Muhammad led some fights personally). Sure, he gave mercy to those who surrender, all they had to do was either accept Islam (and pay the normal Islam tax), or pay the heavier tax (and of course become vassal cities/states). Nice that he did it. You know other generals who offered more or less the same choice? Genghis Khan and Tamerlane.
Christianity is a bit different in this aspect. It has obviously been an extremely violent religion (maybe even more than Islam), but that happened only after the Christians got into power. However, their original spread was because of fanaticism, not because of violence. It was spread originally (up to 4th century or so) without wars. And I also believe that Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus (historical Jesus, not the invented one) while Islam had a lot to do with Muhammad (there are direct references to him during the time he lived from the Romans).
What is your source that it was Saud ibn Muad who made the decision to kill all adults of the jewish tribe and enslave their women and children? Despite the fact they breached the covenant does it still gell with you as the religion and prophet of love and compasssion? Muhammed ordered 80 whippings for false accusations of adultery and had the feet, hands and eyes gorged out of 2 men who were convicted to conspire against him. I admit, I did not bookmark the pages everytime I read something polemic/violent/negative, so I can find the passages but flipping through 650 pages without knowing where to start gets a bit tiresome.
I'm pretty sure that it has probably become awfully convenient to consider Quran and the hadith valid about the positives of the life of Muhammed and consider in invalid about the negatives. I don't think the authors even contemplated that 21st century religious critics would be reading it when they put into scripture. Especially regarding the age of Aisha. It would be quite remarkable if her father and herself couldn't get her age about right.
Last edited:
Alright. Because of illness I am no longer fruitfully able to meditate so I have given up on the goal of enlightenment in this lifetime and just put on emphasis on not fecking everything up.
I'll say something contraditory. I'm atheist, but i really like people engaged in those spiritual new age, psychedelic culture, inspired in Terence McKenna and others. I dont agree with their conclusions, i think they are deluding themselves. I do not go into their places, i just love them for some reason.