Richard Dawkins PH prophet

[Halb]

otolith said:

captain_cynic said:

Using Kony as an example isn't to say Christianity is evil, rather it says that Kony is evil and is using religion as a tool to control people.

That's pretty much what they have always been for.

quite. the carrot of a lovely afterlife, and people will willingly do bad things.

[SpeckledJim]

captain_cynic said:

This. Kind of.

The problem isn't religion is as much as how religion is used. Every major religion has been used to justify one terrible act or another. There are Christian armies using Child soldiers in places like Uganda (The Lords army headed by our old mate, Kony, for one) but we just don't see that on the front page of the Daily Mail for some strange reason...

Using Kony as an example isn't to say Christianity is evil, rather it says that Kony is evil and is using religion as a tool to control people. Religions themselves are not anthropomorphic. I say the same about Al-Quedea, ISIS/ISIL, Abu Sayeff, MILF and the rest of that lot. The problem with terrorism are terrorists, not whatever sky faerie they believe in.

So attacking the religion for the act of extremists will only draw moderates to the side of the extremists.

As for Dawkins, I think people are reading too much into it. For me the important bit was the last sentence "or is that just my cultural upbringing".

But it's not the extremist end of Islam which is homophobic, transphobic, and treats women as inferior chattels. It's all of it.

You don't have to be a supporter of Isis to marry your cousin and destroy the lives of your children. That's pretty normal.

You don't have to have just got back from fighting in Syria to force your wife to hide from the world and control her every waking moment. That's pretty normal too.

Certain behaviours and beliefs that are stitched into the fabric of Islam (and other religions) are now, but for a shameful lack of guts in parliament, illegal.

[captain_cynic]

Halb said:

otolith said:

captain_cynic said:

Using Kony as an example isn't to say Christianity is evil, rather it says that Kony is evil and is using religion as a tool to control people.

That's pretty much what they have always been for.

quite. the carrot of a lovely afterlife, and people will willingly do bad things.

Hence the Milgram experiment. People are quite willing to do bad things as long as someone is absolving them of responsibility.

Maybe I'm being optimistic... But I think as a species we're beginning to move past the need for religion to explain things.

[Mothersruin]

...and the stick of shame during the actual life.

Reading about the history of Jerusalem at the moment and the introduction to the Crusader era was interesting. Mainly that the Knights that went to fight didn't really do it for the love of the Levant and the lands there, but mostly so they could be absolved of their sins by the church and be seen to be squeeky clean again after being naughty boys.

[TTwiggy]

SpeckledJim said:

But it's not the extremist end of Islam which is homophobic, transphobic, and treats women as inferior chattels. It's all of it.

You don't have to be a supporter of Isis to marry your cousin and destroy the lives of your children. That's pretty normal.

You don't have to have just got back from fighting in Syria to force your wife to hide from the world and control her every waking moment. That's pretty normal too.

Certain behaviours and beliefs that are stitched into the fabric of Islam (and other religions) are now, but for a shameful lack of guts in parliament, illegal.

What you're talking about there is mostly cultural and would exist with or without Islam. The religion is just a convenient way of justifying it all.

Lots of middle America is culturally very 'conservative' (hates gays, hates women, etc) but uses the bible to justify that outlook.

[captain_cynic]

SpeckledJim said:

But it's not the extremist end of Islam which is homophobic, transphobic, and treats women as inferior chattels. It's all of it.

You don't have to be a supporter of Isis to marry your cousin and destroy the lives of your children. That's pretty normal.

You don't have to have just got back from fighting in Syria to force your wife to hide from the world and control her every waking moment. That's pretty normal too.

Certain behaviours and beliefs that are stitched into the fabric of Islam (and other religions) are now, but for a shameful lack of guts in parliament, illegal.

Now we're using stereotypes to argue a position of hate.

You'll find that most Muslims aren't homophobic, transphobic and sexist. Those traits are most prevalent in the form we use for the stereotype, Wahhabism.

If you go to the most populous Muslim country in the world you'll find very little of that. Probably as much as there is in the UK or Australia.

I dislike Wahhabism, but I cant hate everyone in Saudi Arabia simply because the county is controlled by Wahhabists. All that would accomplish is more propaganda for the extremists.

Personally I think the whole religion thing is dying out, hence most highly religious countries are 3rd world stholes. As the middle class rises, the role for religion diminishes.

[daddy cool]

Im an atheist, and if I had a button that could remove any religion from the planet I would press it for Islam in a heartbeat...
That said, when ive been in a muslim country I love the sound of the call to prayer being broadcast from towers from miles around - especially during sunset when its carried on the breeze, its hypnotic.... I'd actually prefer to listen to that than church bells ringing (which I don't find pleasing to the ears at all). Fancy that!

[RTB]

TTwiggy said:

What you're talking about there is mostly cultural and would exist with or without Islam. The religion is just a convenient way of justifying it all.

Lots of middle America is culturally very 'conservative' (hates gays, hates women, etc) but uses the bible to justify that outlook.

Religion isn't cultural?

[Halb]

daddy cool said:

Im an atheist, and if I had a button that could remove any religion from the planet I would press it for Islam in a heartbeat...
!

I'd press it for all. Which is to say, the cultural artefacts and reminiscences would remain, but people would stop being silly and look at what they used to believe and go, 'my, weren't we a silly lot. Now let's feed the world and explore space.'

[Mothersruin]

daddy cool said:

Im an atheist, and if I had a button that could remove any religion from the planet I would press it for Islam in a heartbeat...
That said, when ive been in a muslim country I love the sound of the call to prayer being broadcast from towers from miles around - especially during sunset when its carried on the breeze, its hypnotic.... I'd actually prefer to listen to that than church bells ringing (which I don't find pleasing to the ears at all). Fancy that!

Nah, after 15 years in and around the Middle East, I tired of it, especialy the rantings on Friday mornings - that said, I moved back to a sleepy village in Shropshire next to a church and every Tuesday evening the local campos would practice - they were absolutely terrible. You could tell when decent teams would visit to have a bash.

[TTwiggy]

RTB said:

TTwiggy said:

What you're talking about there is mostly cultural and would exist with or without Islam. The religion is just a convenient way of justifying it all.

Lots of middle America is culturally very 'conservative' (hates gays, hates women, etc) but uses the bible to justify that outlook.

Religion isn't cultural?

Not really. The British 'take' on what it means to be Catholic is rather different to the Southern European view of it. Because British culture is different to Italian/Spanish culture. Equally, Malaysian Muslims have rather different views to Saudi Muslims, despite following the same faith.

[RTB]

TTwiggy said:

Not really. The British 'take' on what it means to be Catholic is rather different to the Southern European view of it. Because British culture is different to Italian/Spanish culture. Equally, Malaysian Muslims have rather different views to Saudi Muslims, despite following the same faith.

That presupposes that there is a correct version of a particular religious code laid down by a supernatural being. A benchmark that is then corrupted by various regional and cultural differences. I'd argue that since religion is entirely man-made it arises from cultural practices in the first place and any one cultural "take" on a religious practice or custom is just as valid as any other.

[anonymous-user]

daddy cool said:

That said, when ive been in a muslim country I love the sound of the call to prayer being broadcast from towers from miles around - especially during sunset when its carried on the breeze, its hypnotic.... I'd actually prefer to listen to that than church bells ringing (which I don't find pleasing to the ears at all). Fancy that!

I agree, the sound of church bells really gets on my tits, but the call to prayer, particularly as you say when the suns going down, as you lie on a beach basking in the heat is much better

[Mothersruin]

RTB said:

TTwiggy said:

Not really. The British 'take' on what it means to be Catholic is rather different to the Southern European view of it. Because British culture is different to Italian/Spanish culture. Equally, Malaysian Muslims have rather different views to Saudi Muslims, despite following the same faith.

That presupposes that there is a correct version of a particular religious code laid down by a supernatural being. A benchmark that is then corrupted by various regional and cultural differences. I'd argue that since religion is entirely man-made it arises from cultural practices in the first place and any one cultural "take" on a religious practice or custom is just as valid as any other.

Same as a Christian or Muslim not believing in the other 2,487 gods knocking about and me not believing in all the 2,488 gods knocking about.

[SpeckledJim]

captain_cynic said:

SpeckledJim said:

But it's not the extremist end of Islam which is homophobic, transphobic, and treats women as inferior chattels. It's all of it.

You don't have to be a supporter of Isis to marry your cousin and destroy the lives of your children. That's pretty normal.

You don't have to have just got back from fighting in Syria to force your wife to hide from the world and control her every waking moment. That's pretty normal too.

Certain behaviours and beliefs that are stitched into the fabric of Islam (and other religions) are now, but for a shameful lack of guts in parliament, illegal.

Now we're using stereotypes to argue a position of hate.

You'll find that most Muslims aren't homophobic, transphobic and sexist. Those traits are most prevalent in the form we use for the stereotype, Wahhabism.

If you go to the most populous Muslim country in the world you'll find very little of that. Probably as much as there is in the UK or Australia.

I dislike Wahhabism, but I cant hate everyone in Saudi Arabia simply because the county is controlled by Wahhabists. All that would accomplish is more propaganda for the extremists.

Personally I think the whole religion thing is dying out, hence most highly religious countries are 3rd world stholes. As the middle class rises, the role for religion diminishes.

Not a position of hate. A position of frustration and dismay.

British Pakistanis (of a variety of religions) represent 3% of the population and 30% of the babies born with genetic defects. This is for reasons that are so incredibly stupid that I could scream.

They are destroying their childrens' lives.

If you can blame 'culture' without blaming the religions too, then fair enough, but I can't.

[Not-The-Messiah]

SpeckledJim said:

But it's not the extremist end of Islam which is homophobic, transphobic, and treats women as inferior chattels. It's all of it.

You don't have to be a supporter of Isis to marry your cousin and destroy the lives of your children. That's pretty normal.

You don't have to have just got back from fighting in Syria to force your wife to hide from the world and control her every waking moment. That's pretty normal too.

Certain behaviours and beliefs that are stitched into the fabric of Islam (and other religions) are now, but for a shameful lack of guts in parliament, illegal.

I do think if Islam wasn't a religion but a political party and the Quran and hadiths where it's manifesto. How tolerant people would be of it and it's members?

I suspect with policys like members who leave the party should be killed, women should be seen as inferior to men, adulterers should be stoned to death and so on. It would actually be band and being a member of it made illegal.

But purely because it's a fairytale that's been around thousands of years and millions are signed up members. It must not just be tolerated but accepted, promoted and be allowed to influence others.

[TTwiggy]

RTB said:

TTwiggy said:

Not really. The British 'take' on what it means to be Catholic is rather different to the Southern European view of it. Because British culture is different to Italian/Spanish culture. Equally, Malaysian Muslims have rather different views to Saudi Muslims, despite following the same faith.

That presupposes that there is a correct version of a particular religious code laid down by a supernatural being. A benchmark that is then corrupted by various regional and cultural differences. I'd argue that since religion is entirely man-made it arises from cultural practices in the first place and any one cultural "take" on a religious practice or custom is just as valid as any other.

my argument was really a 'chicken and egg' one - i.e does the culture influence the religion or does the religion influence the culture? In reality it's probably a bit of both but my view is that cultures choose the parts of religion that reinforce their views.

Saudi Arabia is a patriarchal society descended from nomadic tribes where women were seen as a commodity. It therefore suits the Saudis to focus on those parts of the Koran in which women are described as chattels as it reinforces their views.

Equally, much of Christian America is rather down on gays. So it suits them to focus on those parts of the bible that decry same-sex relationships.

[RTB]

TTwiggy said:

my argument was really a 'chicken and egg' one - i.e does the culture influence the religion or does the religion influence the culture? In reality it's probably a bit of both but my view is that cultures choose the parts of religion that reinforce their views.

Saudi Arabia is a patriarchal society descended from nomadic tribes where women were seen as a commodity. It therefore suits the Saudis to focus on those parts of the Koran in which women are described as chattels as it reinforces their views.

Equally, much of Christian America is rather down on gays. So it suits them to focus on those parts of the bible that decry same-sex relationships.

My argument would be that religion is entirely man-made and therefore is indivisible from culture. The practices and beliefs haven't been sent down from on high but come out of already deeply held cultural beliefs that are codified into a religion to help cement that cultural belief. Religion is the shop front for already held cultural beliefs.


I think for all practical purposes we probably have a similar position. I'm just really uneasy when culture and religion get treated separately, so that when a religious person does something good it's down to their deeply held religious convictions, and when they do something evil (like stone women for being raped) it's a purely cultural thing . It seems to me a case of wanting to have their loaves and fishes and eat them

[Digga]

There is an argument for this WRT culture and religion; look at the Christian calendar. They had to 'invent' a reason to celebrate mid winter, because of the strength of following for the pagan feast.

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

Where is that, it looks familiar?!

Blue Mosque, Istanbul