@ rvw it's most likely mohammed was jewish he came from the medina region where some jewish people were mostof the medinas population including mecca was jewish
and ither sources show he was from a jewish place and was jewish.

@Ironheart:
It doesn't matter that much if we can proove that he was born jewish does it? He's the founder of a jewish sect, that should speak for it self. :P


@Julkorn:
Your theodicy there doesn't sound very mainline-christian. If I may ask, what's your background?

Have you ever read Quran?

my religion is islam. i can only try!! to tell you Allah or try!! to answer your questions. but when i was doing this i may add my ideas, or someone's ideas(both of them can be wrong and after you start to search you will see there is a lot of wrong things which added to islam by humans). after i read quran all i can say is "Allah is only one god" and "Quran is Allah's word". i cant tell you Allah better than Allah, right?. Quran has never been changed and it will be never changed. as a muslim we can only try to understand the message of Allah. i wanna share some videos for people who wants to watch. You will see that things that make you far from Islam are not in Quran. please forget all the things (good or bad) about islam before starting to read quran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmSjoMnjD-Y&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2TvpoU7S0I&feature=fvwrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjLbxmSJTVI&feature=related

PART 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P912yw0Wc5M&feature=related

PART 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doL8AtLN9Aw

i am studying electronics engineering at one of the best univesity of Turkey, i know physics, chemistry etc.

mohammed was from mecca. his grandfather worked at the shrine for the local gods that is now the holiest place for muslims. mohammed went to medina because many of his fellow meccans held fast to their traditional gods and did not accept mohammed's ideas. he returned to mecca as a conqueror, but refrained from taking the city and instead negotiated, since it wouldn't be especially attractive if he took the holiest city by force.

medina had a small jewish population. if mecca had any jews, they were afforded less acceptance than they received in medina, which was a more tolerant city (hence mohammed's hijra to medina from mecca).

@rvw well u have prooved my point:P u said if i were God (eccetera eccetera) but u are not god! a human cannot even understand the less part of god actions so u cannot say what could happen if a bad thing won't happened. so even a bad thing can turn in a very good thing here in 1000 years, and u cannot foreseen it thats way u cannot make a judgement about what u think that is bad and u think that is not. anyway i dont pretend that u understand how irrilevant is this life respect of eternal life, cos once again it is just a belief problem, but still i forever think that there are no proofs now and in the future about the non existance of god. i dont hate atheist people absolutely (i'm just sad for them as they are sad for me) but i just dislike them when they wont to demonstrate of being right:(

I have a question;
I am orthodox by birth, however I am not very devout.
Now, this is why I am asking: How were people judged in the first place? The desendants of Adam and Eve? My limited knowledge of the Bible leads me to beleive that Adam and Eve did have children but I can't be too ceartain.

If it so happens they did not, however, how would God judge people?

Which leads me to another point...how to people get judged when they die to go to heaven/hell? Is there a mix between the Underworld (greek mythology)/Judgment Hall(Egyptian mythology)? Becuase basically Christianity is a gigantic mixture of religions everywhere else.

Btw, do you how how God is usually pictured? An old very intimidating by with a white beard right? You know where that came from? ZEUS, the father of all gods in Greek Mythology. Fun fact of the day

Why does this thread exist on warlight? :P

Why do girls exist on warlight?

Hi all. Again too may posts to answer them individually, but glad to have revived the debate^^

Thanks to [WM] x for the help^^ You expressed many of my thoughts on religion in a much wittier way than I would have been able! +1 to all you said.

About my list of most hateful religions, of course I have reasons to put them in that order. Of course this is very subjective, and just my personal opinion, influenced by my particular circumstances, such as being gay.

1. Islam. IMHO is by far the most dangerous and hateful religion, both to its believers and to people who don't believe in it. I have read most of Qran (in Spanish, not in Arabic of course) trying not to be too judgemental, but it has scared the shit out of me more than any other fiction book I have read, specially knowing that millions of people consider it to be undeniably true.

A quote from Sura 2, right at the start!

"6. As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe. 7. Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur). 23. And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true. 24. But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith."

Now, the bad things I have to say about Islam could be also said about Christianity, the difference being that while traditionally Christian societies have become more secular and open-minded in the last years, Islamic societies seem to have gone back to the middle ages.

Now, the actual reasons:

A- Obscurantism: religious beliefs hamper the development of Science and censor art, literature and philosophy. There was a time when the Islamic world was s beacon of science, research, philosophy and creativity. Sadly, right now it has become quite the opposite.

B- Misogyny: Islam systematically treats women as third-class citizens, just above animals. I do not think I have to go into detail in this point. Some say this is something cultural and it's not directly derived from Qran, but the problem is that Islam PERMITS things such as genital mutilation to occur while other religions wouldn't.

C- Homophobia: Every single day of my life, I thank god (irony) for having been born in the place and time I have been born. If I had been born 1000 km south of here or 50 years ago, my life would be much much more miserable. And I have been raised as a Catholic, attending a catholic school and high school and going to mass every sunday.

(continues from point C in last post). Dealing with my sexuality in this society was a bit of a struggle when I was a teenager, but nowadays my sexuality is accepted by everybody I know, and I have the legal right in Spain to get married to a man and adopt children. ^^ I don't see that happening in any country with a mainly Muslim population any time soon!

So yes, these are mostly my reasons to despise Islam. It especially annoys me since it is a childish and false belief (as any other religion). The existence of god as portrayed in Islam and Christianity can be easily refuted, and you can choose to accept the reality or to keep denying it (red pill or blue pill, my friends).

And yes, I have heard all the counter-arguments: I know Islam is not a monolithic culture and that it varies a lot from one region or age to other (same as Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism). But that doesn't make me unable to judge it as undesirable for me or any other human being.

I also know Christianity can be as bad as Islam, but that doesn't make Islam any better. A psycopath that has killed 100 people doesn't turn a psycopath who has killed 80 into a saint.

I am happy to identify myself as Islamophobic (not racist at all, though, my ex-boyfriend is Indian and black as a crow). I show no respect for a false belief system that make millions of people miserable. I'm not disrespectful to Muslim individuals though, I do have some Muslim friends ("relaxed" ones) who don't judge me for my sexuality. I even tricked one once into eating pork. XD

It also annoys me when people say "but moderate Islam is not bad". Well, for me it's bad enough.

The alleged benefits of this or any other religions, such as charity and consolation, seem quite feeble to me comparing to all the bad things the convey. We can be charitable without the need of religion. I prefer to donate to a charity that is not going to build churches or indoctrinate the ones they help (more money for hospitals). About consolation, I am ok if someone decides to believe a lie to make their lives a bit less miserable, but it is still a lie.

I hope none got offended personally as it is not my intention, but disguising reality doesn't help anyone.

Wall of text coming up. If you made any post on this thread, I marked each piece with the username of whoever I am replying to, so you can easily find if I replied to you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@i-like-swords:

Thank you for being so kind to provide us with a real-life example of a tolerant, open-minded Christian. :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Salah ad-Din:

First video:
Bookmarked it!

Second video:
It is well known that when "Europe" was thrown into the Dark Ages, it was the Arabic (Islamic) world that didn't just keep science alive, but furthered it immensely; they were (by "Western standards"...) ages ahead of their time. I'd have to do actual research on whether it was simply a known scientific fact the moon reflects light (instead of emitting it itself). However, I *do know* (and this makes me wonder about the other claims) that Francis Drake didn't discover the Earth is round..., he *re*discovered knowledge which had been lost in Europe due to our messing up big time (the Dark Ages). In fact, the ancient Greeks already knew the Earth was round. Not only that, they even gave a remarkably accurate estimate of its diameter.

On an entirely non-related matter, I really like how this video shows a massively different rhetoric style then I'm used to. I have no idea whether it's related to Islam, the Arabic world or just the speaker personally, but it's interesting nevertheless.

Third video:
This guy utterly misunderstands (or at least, misrepresents) both the big bang theory and the concept of entropy; on the science front he has not the vaguest clue what he's talking about.
It makes absolutely no sense to dismiss the big bang theory simply because "we don't know where it came from / what exploded", unless you also explain where God came from (you don't get to dismiss one theory when your "solution" has the exact same problem).
The same applies to dismissing evolution because there is no designer (unless you explain who designed God).
The entire part dealing with human souls and the creation of life makes no sense whatsoever from beginning to end. (Also, so what if human scientists cannot create life? An equally valid way of looking at things would be to say they cannot create life *yet*. And given that medical science only really started getting serious a couple decades ago (*and* the fact it sure seems like we're already getting awfully close) blows this whole reasoning out of the water even if it *did* make sense.)
In short, this dude is just preaching the Islamic counterpart to "Intelligent Design" (you can probably guess what I think about that...).

Fourth video:
@Everyone: Don't close it right away! He only speaks Arabic for thirty seconds (and a few seconds here and there when he's (I think?) quoting Quran; I have the impression he's addressing a mosque or something). You might want to skip the first ten minutes, which basically sum up to "I grew up a Christian and ended up deciding to *really* read the Bible, cover-to-cover". After the ten minute mark it actually gets very interesting.

I do have a problem with the last five-or-so minutes of the second part; it makes absolutely no sense to forgive any sin imaginable, yet kill people in "the most horrifying way you can possibly imagine" for the heinous crime of never having heard about Islam. I would have a problem with that if it applied to unbelievers who *do* know about Islam but chose not to adopt it, but he is very clearly talking about unbelievers who've never even heard of Islam (he's urging people to go spread knowledge of *the existence* of Islam).

Also, this video (especially the first part) illustrates very well how dangerous close-mindedness and lack-of-tolerance are. Sure, he might get a few giggles out of his audience recounting some of his own (pretty horrible) anti-Islamic and anti-foreigner prejudices, but an equally valid reaction would be to feel a chill running down your spine about just how bad intolerance and ignorance can get (and how incredibly dangerous they are when combined)... :s

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Your Time:
Could you please consider using punctuation, capitalisation, the use of multiple paragraphs and the application of some proof-reading? Your post is incredibly hard to understand.

The only bit I can figure out is you essentially stating "No matter what happens, it's all for the best, because God is perfect. If something bad happens, it's still good, we just don't understand how or why.". That may be your opinion, but it's impossible to reason or argue about such statements.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Awesomeguy:
I can't claim having read the Bible, but from what I know, Adam and Eve indeed had children, Abel and Cain. (If you've ever played any of the games in the "Command & Conquer" series, you might want to notice the similar pronunciation of "Cain" and "Kane" and then go watch all the cut-scenes again. :) ). Of course, with God never having created more people than Adam and Eve, Abel and Cain being Eve's children and your mother not being Eve..., something rather messed up must've happened somewhere along the line.

Christianity has a concept with (judging by name) could be similar to "Judgement Hall". It's called the pearly gates and is manned by Saint Peter.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Gayprince
Replying to you is made slightly difficult because I'm not sure whether I should read your post as "all religions are horrible" or "all religions are bad, but Islam is way worse than anything else" (you seem to be switching the two a few times).

I can't find the link any more, but a while ago I read an interview with a gay Imam. It is his believe that nothing in the Quran prohibits homosexuality...; actually, he claims Quran *supports* it, citing a verse about "a kind of man which women need not fear and around which they do not have to wear a headscarf" (that's from memory, not an actual quotation). Of course, I do take offence to the implication that any non-gay man is a rapist-waiting-to-happen (and wonder if women should wear a headscarf when there are lesbians present ;) ), but other than that I think that verse deserves a lot more attention.

A bit of Googling turned up this document: http://worldrec.info/2012/02/17/first-openly-gay-imam/ While I can't be sure, the picture looks vaguely familiar and everything in the article matches the few shards I remember from the interview. He does not appear to have an article on the English Wikipedia, but that webpage links to a Google-translated version of his article on the German Wikipedia. I think you should give it a read.

Also, watch (at least) the first video Salah ad-Din linked to. It's a Ted presentation, so at the very worst, you'll waste ten minutes of your life you're never getting back. However, those ten minutes just might change your view of Islam..., drastically. (Don't get Islamic extremists confused with Islam itself!)

Regarding obscurantism:
Go read up on the Arabic world, from around 500 CE to 1500 CE or so; it was the scientific centre of the world! (Of course, reading up on *Europe* at that same time would reinforce your idea. Then again, that just might be were you got the idea in the first place...)

Regarding misogyny:
That's just ludicrous; by that same reasoning we could say that democracy promotes murder. After all, can you name a single democratic country where no murders have been committed? Also, let's keep things civilised and keep it at "the recent Christian record isn't exactly perfect either".

Regarding homophobia:
A yes, because your life would've been just peachy if you had been born in, oh I don't know, how about Texas? Also, twenty years ago nobody would have expected that from any country with a mainly Christian population any time soon either and look where we are today.

|> I am happy to identify myself as Islamophobic (not racist at all, though, my ex-boyfriend is Indian and black as a crow).

Ah, so you don't discriminate based on the colour of a person's skin, but only based on their religious believes...!? How on Earth is that better than someone who "only" discriminates on, let's say, a person's sexual orientation?

|> I even tricked one once into eating pork.

Why...!? Or should I ask, how would you feel if he tricked you into having sex with a girl? (Yes, I know that's a rather ridiculous question; luckily it's a rhetorical one.)

Missed me?

CONFIDENTIAL TO EVERYONE: I don't care if you don't read this, I wouldn't if I were you. I happen to be conversing with some people however, so I should really address them.

----------------------------

Views =/= beliefs. I have no beliefs, so I cannot be a hypocrite, but I sometimes contradict myself, so excuse me.

Excuse me also, re: apartheid, however "accusation" implies a disbelief on your part. "Statement" would be a more neutral alternative.

Leviticus forbids hundreds of things, it is truly ridiculous. If anyone thinks the word of God said they shouldn't wear clothes with mixed fabrics, I am sorry, but they are thoroughly dense.

I read that not eating pork is a thing because of tapeworms. Your religion says don't eat pork, you don't get tapeworms, you survive to teach that religion to your kids. Even a creationist might see the logic behind that one. Hitchens said the tapeworm thing was bogus, though.*

*I just read you say the same thing, as a defense of religion. Well, the moth will fly into the flame of a candle.^ I don't believe humans are better than moths, but I view things that way sometimes. If anything, I'm not cynical enough.

^On further thought, this surely means that you aren't so far from recognising it as being a maladaptive trait. Unless that creationism crack you made was in fact a serious detail.

----------------------------

RVW: "which were the first parents to teach their children religion?"

OK, I'm not talking about sunday school here. Children learn behaviours from their parents, as infants, and when they are older they learn traditions.

Your comments imply that religion was developed upon stones that God cast down on us. Religion is a construct of the human mind, and early religion was primitive and involved 'witch doctor'-type things, voodoo, praying to Sun Gods and so on. Not theologies. I assure you the Aztecs did not choose to sacrifice humans of their own volition. (note: i do not believe in free will.) It came and went. Most people who kill children or animals for religious reasons aren't isolated cases. it is culturally bound.

Religions survive through their offspring. I refer you to the first command God gives in the bible: "Go forth and multiply". I also refer you to meme theory, which I'm not well-versed in, but is related to what I am saying.

Your question makes as much sense as "Which were the first parents to teach their children art?" One cave painting had the honour of being the first. Its composer has the honour of being that parent. The details are irrelevent.

---------------------

"However, I still disagree with your apparent believe that all religion is bad"

I do not believe in "good" and "bad". I rarely believe that all x is y. I like gospel music. I like Anna Karenina. Yet I dislike Diego Maradona's goal against England in the World Cup. I dislike female genital mutilation.

My contention was, in short, religion, overall, retards humanity, by common standards. No longer need for you to paraphrase now.

-----------------------

"many people at some point chose to become religious, so it must have something to offer."

I am talking about austrolepithicides (sp). I am talking about Homo *erectus*. We are monkeys. We have had religion since we were even more monkey.

Just because a proto-human 'chose' something, does not give it merit. I don't have time to review all their choices anyway, especially ones so counter-intuitive and with inherent contradictions.

---------------------

"However, I think you are also taking it out on religious people who are far more "relaxed", following the core of their religion (be a decent human being, pray every once in a while, wear a cross necklace / headscarf / kacchera / whatever), without hurting anyone else."

I do not care to analyse other's jewelry or other such trifles. I do maintain that their beliefs psychologically damage their children.

Religion is the opiate of the people. Opiates can be used as medicine. They can make people docile. More important, they hurt people in the long term. It's a rich analogy, unfairly derided. I have nothing to take out, and I would not take it out on them. When I don't have pathos for them, I envy them. They happen to be wrong, however.

-----------------------

"Not sure about algebra, but did the invention have anything to do with religion?"

Presumably. I know my irreligion and my philosophy (or denial thereof) has had a very large effect on my life. (I'm not sure about it either by the way, I know he was from the middle east a very long time ago, so I guess he was a Muslim.)

-----------------------

"Galileo getting sentenced to house arrest on the other hand was definitely very much related to religion."

Are you starting to agree with me?

-----------------------

"if you and a friend of yours leave the bar in the middle of the night and you make a detour to walk her home, you're doing the exact same thing"

Oh, so reason, good judgement and compassion are the exact same thing as perpetuating a society which makes women submissive. I'll bear that in mind.

-----------------------

"I've been told the Saudi air force employs female fighter pilots. Sure, they've got to be driven to work by their husband (Quran forbids women from driving a cart, and by extension a car), but it never said they can't fly a plane (that's what you get for writing your holy book a thousand years before the invention of the plane :p ), so piloting is allowed."

What a charming tale. I'll accept the first fact, though I find it doubtful (no judgement on you. Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence). I don't know why the sharifs don't also forbid "air-carts" to be driven by women, they really dropped the ball there. They forbid cars, might as well go the whole hog (no offense #dontrockthecasbah).

You seem to pleasure in the small things, when it comes to religion. If anyone is guilty for ignoring one side instead of the other, it is you. If I were to give religion a Humanity Grade, it might get around 10%*. 10% good, 90% bad. You say I overlook that 10%, I believe (words can be subtle) that you overlook the 90%.

*Don't make a big deal of that number, you can substitute it for whatever you like, as long as it's less than half.

-----------------------

Julkorn: "So it is just belief against belief and neither strikes home with proof."

I agree. It is one reason I am a nihilist. But that's a very different (and more fun) argument, one I tried to initiate with one of my posts here.

"The point with all this suffering in this world is according to the bible that this world has itself parted from God by Adam's fall."

There are many interpretations of the Bible. It is all things to most people.

-----------------------

RVW: "Google "falsifiability" " etc

Science also has philosophers behind it. Whatsisname, Karl Popper. It is possible to dispute the philosophy of science: Descartes set out to prove his own existence. That is an demonstrable questioning of science. If you can hardly prove that *you* exist, how can you prove anything? To say that anything is meaningful requires a defense, philosophically speaking.

There are even different philosophies of science. Bing verifiability, bing vienna circle. They both concern science: and you have to reject one to accept the other. So, you don't believe in one kind of science, and I don't believe in either.

-----------------------

dunga: "For example, Astrology was subject of thousands of years of knowledge and educations in cultures like China and India. There is lots of lots of studies and well educated people in this matter in this both countries.
But now IGNORANT teenagers and young adults, or elder fundamentalists won't take even a 5 minutes study on the subject and already feel free to condemn all the subject and believers."

Well sure astronomy was -- wait, astroLOGy!?

"I for one i prefer to first really understand what great spiritual minds have to say, and not trying to shut them up with my ignorance. They for sure had much more going on on their minds than i had. I didn't move the life of billions of people, and I wont."

Not enough time in the world to understand everything everyone said. Gotta pick and choose.

Incidentally, I don't hold many humans at such demi-god status. They are only wo/men. I don't care much for the billions they "move", for that matter. I'm not wholly convinced on movement itself.

-----------------------

moros: "I'm a multi-agnostic. There are multiple gods I don't know anything of."

Gods essentially share the same properties. This is because he is man-made. Trite point anyway.

-----------------------

rvw: "Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised at all if similar examples exist in Christianity"

Violence is an early part of religion. Tribes against tribes. If you think you're fighting for a place in Heaven, you might fight harder, you're more likely to win (not die), more likely to pass your belief on to kids. Crusades, Old Testament wars.

Also, prosyletising, shagging (as I mention above), etc.

"9 out of 10 religions fail in their first year" - God (from the Simpsons). It's evolution, but meme theory to be specific.

-----------------------

onto the next page :|

This is gonna be fun :P

Yay, next page!

...why?

That was longer than it seemed in the little box.* Sigh.

*4.5 page lengths! I could write a book that no-one would read or publish!

-----------------

RVW
"@i-like-swords:

Thank you for being so kind to provide us with a real-life example of a tolerant, open-minded Christian. :)"

I'm afraid he denied the word of God. He is no Christian, but a heretic. What's that smell, i-like-swords? Might it be brimstone? "Is it hot in here"? Why no, I don't find it hot in here, it is just you.

"Of course, with God never having created more people than Adam and Eve, Abel and Cain being Eve's children and your mother not being Eve..., something rather messed up must've happened somewhere along the line."

Someone begat someone, someone begat someone, someone begat someone, someone begat someone, blah blah blah. I wish I could gat the guy who came up with that thrilling passage. Never has humping been so tedious.

---------------------

"Ah, so you don't discriminate based on the colour of a person's skin, but only based on their religious believes...!? How on Earth is that better than someone who "only" discriminates on, let's say, a person's sexual orientation?"

Because gays don't stone Muslims. And according to you at least, religion is a choice, whereas I didn't choose to be not gay. An analogy to religion would be politics, not sexuality. I am prejudiced to conservatives, for example.

"A yes, because your life would've been just peachy if you had been born in, oh I don't know, how about Texas? Also, twenty years ago nobody would have expected that from any country with a mainly Christian population any time soon either and look where we are today."

And why do you think that is? <sarcasm> Because of religious people like, um, Dan Savage? I wonder if the people who try to impede this progress might possibly be religious? I recall an atheist group, the Westboro Baptist Church who protest against gay rights. </sarcasm>

Well look at that, you can still be sarcastic even without formatting! (Oh man that joke will not age well)

@x:

|> |> "which were the first parents to teach their children religion?"

|> Your question makes as much sense as "Which were the first parents to teach their children art?" One cave painting had the honour of being the first.

The reason I asked about the first was to show a problem with your reasoning. You stated that people are only religious because their parents were. So, why were their parents? Because *their* parents (the grandparents) were religious. You can extend that all you want, but sooner or later, you will run into a generation which did *not* get religion from their parents (I'm simply applying the induction principle here).
I don't really care about *which* were those first parents; the point is they must've existed, I care about them (whoever they were) breaking your argument.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|> |> "if you and a friend of yours leave the bar in the middle of the night and you make a detour to walk her home, you're doing the exact same thing"

|> Oh, so reason, good judgement and compassion are the exact same thing as perpetuating a society which makes women submissive. I'll bear that in mind.

No, that is *not* what I was saying. The origin of the rule was "good judgement and compassion". I don't deny there are people who (deliberately??) misunderstand it and abuse it to force women into being submissive. However that does not make the rule itself bad.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|> You seem to pleasure in the small things, when it comes to religion. If anyone is guilty for ignoring one side instead of the other, it is you. If I were to give religion a Humanity Grade, it might get around 10%*. 10% good, 90% bad. You say I overlook that 10%, I believe (words can be subtle) that you overlook the 90%.

No, I'm aiming for hearing both sides of the story. As opposed to just spouting your believes, subtly presenting them as facts and spending 10% of your time on reading (not understanding, merely reading) other people's posts and 90% on writing a reply based on poorly-understood quotations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|> |> "Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised at all if similar examples exist in Christianity"

|> Violence is an early part of religion. Tribes against tribes. If you think you're fighting for a place in Heaven, you might fight harder, you're more likely to win (not die), more likely to pass your belief on to kids. Crusades, Old Testament wars.

How on Earth does that reply even make sense...? Here's a quick recap on the conversation that quote referred to:

antiloopje wrote:
|> If God exists, I don't think he is both all-knowing and all-good. If he is all-knowing and all-good then why did he never taught us the basics of hygiene?

RvW wrote:
|> From what I understand, Islam tells you not to eat pork because it used to be a bad idea (pigs carried diseases which could transfer to humans if they ate the meat (without properly cooking it...!?)). So in a sense, that's God (or Allah, what's in a name) telling his followers something about hygiene.

antiloopje wrote:
|> Interesting opinion, because I wasn't thinking of eating pork, but you're right on that. I was more thinking about epidemies like Plague. Perhaps we may conclude that Allah is better then God? :) (as far as they're not the same)

RvW wrote:
|> Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised at all if similar examples exist in Christianity / the Bible (I just don't know any off the top of my head).

How is tribal violence even slightly related to this...!?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|> Someone begat someone, someone begat someone, someone begat someone, someone begat someone, blah blah blah. I wish I could gat the guy who came up with that thrilling passage. Never has humping been so tedious.

Man, is it really so difficult to connect a few dots. Okay, I'll spell it out for you: only one woman was created by God. She and her husband only had two children. Explain to me where person number five came from (or, more to the point, who where the father and mother of that fifth person).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|> And why do you think that is? <sarcasm> Because of religious people like, um, Dan Savage? I wonder if the people who try to impede this progress might possibly be religious? I recall an atheist group, the Westboro Baptist Church who protest against gay rights. </sarcasm>

The discussion was on whether Islam or Christianity is "more evil" than the other; one measure of that evilness being homophobia. Hence the comparison to Texas (which has a reputation for being home to some rather fundamentalist Christians, no offence to the countless sane Texans).

Now, I don't have the vaguest clue who this "Dan Savage" is, but if he's a Christian homophobic (and Texan?) you just told me I used a great example. Also, "Baptist Church" does not sound all that "atheist" to me; am I missing some joke here...?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|> Well look at that, you can still be sarcastic even without formatting! (Oh man that joke will not age well)

Meh, not like markdown has any formatting to denote sarcasm anyway. Besides, this thread will (presumably) die at some point and be purged six months after that..., quite possibly before the majority of people have forgotten about the forum issues of yesterday.

"I'm simply applying the induction principle here"

I know what you are applying, and I am fully aware that is it simple. It does not work. Here were the first christians: Jesus and his disciples. An insane man and his small cult. I do not understand how this invalidates the proposition that parents do not pass on their beliefs to their children, and this is primarily how religions are propagated. I ask you again: why are so many Christians born to Christians? Why are so many Jehova's Witnesses born to Jehova's Witnesses? Shintoism is relatively popular in the world. So why is there not a proportional number in every country, if people are freely choosing their religion, irrespective of their parents?


"No, that is *not* what I was saying. The origin of the rule was "good judgement and compassion". I don't deny there are people who (deliberately??) misunderstand it and abuse it to force women into being submissive. However that does not make the rule itself bad."

This is precisely the problem with religion! It makes these crazy rules and they survive for centuries! They thus impede progress!

"No, I'm aiming for hearing both sides of the story. As opposed to just spouting your believes, subtly presenting them as facts and spending 10% of your time on reading (not understanding, merely reading) other people's posts and 90% on writing a reply based on poorly-understood quotations."

Shame that one side is so much larger than the other. The rest is beneath both me and you.

"How is tribal violence even slightly related to this...!? "

You asked for similar instances of religion having an adaptive function. I gave you several. Tribal violence is one.

They are related in the same way that the pentadactyl limb is related to bioluminescence. They both help organisms survive and reproduce. If you would like to know more about evolution, consult your local wikipedia.

------------------

"Man, is it really so difficult to connect a few dots. Okay, I'll spell it out for you: only one woman was created by God. She and her husband only had two children. Explain to me where person number five came from (or, more to the point, who where the father and mother of that fifth person)."

This just reminded me of a particularly silly section of the Bible. I was only having a joke, man.

"Now, I don't have the vaguest clue who this "Dan Savage" is, but if he's a Christian homophobic (and Texan?) you just told me I used a great example. Also, "Baptist Church" does not sound all that "atheist" to me; am I missing some joke here...? "

Yeah, you are. To learn more about sarcasm, consult your local blah blah blah.

"The discussion was on whether Islam or Christianity is "more evil" than the other; one measure of that evilness being homophobia."

I was making a very narrow point about what you said, precisely, that homophobia exists in Texas and was widespread not long ago. I asked you whether religion was not a hinderance in your own examples of the advancement of gay rights. Which has clear overtones to the larger discussion, which is that religion retards the progress of humanity, a point which you have now made several lengthy posts disagreeing with. So, I'm not sure how I can make this more clear to you.

"quite possibly before the majority of people have forgotten about the forum issues of yesterday."

That's cool. Socrates didn't care for posterity either.

"Meh, not like markdown has any formatting to denote sarcasm anyway"

That was the joke. I admit that one wasn't very funny.

-----------------------------------------

Seems like you just woke up or something, or maybe my post was just too damn long, or maybe I'm not being clear enough. I wrote 'sarcasm' twice there, and you are a computer programmer or something, so I didn't expect you to misunderstand the context. Not sure.

I'm not gonna respond to anyone right now because the discussion is too fractured and crazy for me to want to trawl through it. I'm just gonna outline what I think on religion, briefly.

I'm an atheist. I believe in a concept of god. There is no deity/man in the sky etc. There is no supernatural entity. That's why I'm an atheist. The next bit is harder to explain. What I see god as is everything. The universe, the way in which it works, the way life works together, the way planets orbit stars, everything. Just the way the world works. There is no purpose other than existence itself.

I didn't realise that this is called pantheism until just there now :P you learn something new every day!

Oh! And I don't think there's an immortal soul.

If you've read from the start of the thread, my views have changed quite a bit in the interum.