Muslim uproar - (Merged)

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Oberon

*stone is thrown at tycho.*
"WHO THREW THAT?!!"
"No-one, and I mean NO-ONE, is to throw anything until I blow this whistle, even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say Muslim in a positive light!"

Are there any women here?

[NEON DEON]

The Pope describes early Islamic expansion as violent and present day Muslims threaten violence.


I see not much has changed in a thousand years.

[AG124]

What does everyone think of this article? Although it's primary purpose is to criticize fundamentalist Atheism, it also defends muslims' actions. That's a very, very brief and somewhat inaccurate summary on my part but it is late at night and I am tired. I don't really like the article though, although I understand why the author believes some of the things that he does.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-esk...-_b_29749.html

EDIT - Also, an article defending the West's freedom of speech and condemning muslim actions. Not sure if it has been posted here already.

http://www.nysun.com/article/39939?page_no=1

[Perilscope]

Originally Posted by RJ Eskow

How can atheists work with people of faith to create a better society if they won't even read and learn about their fellow human beings? Yet some still refuse, because knowledge might interfere with their own cherished beliefs - not to mention their sales pitch.

Well, reading that part, I can see he lives in a bubble, and I stopped reading there.

No other comments!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Perilscope

Well, reading that part, I can see he lives in a bubble, and I stopped reading there.

Strange what misunderstandings there are about atheism, seem to be more an annoyance that there is somebody who refuses in believing one's own idols. I am atheist myself - and consider myself to be a very religious person. Buddhism is atheistic, too. I would even argue that the new God-concept that was introduced and taught by Jesus, and that stands separate from the God of the old testament, in a way can be understood to be atheistic, non-theistic, in the way that Jesus' "God" is no personalised god, no idol, no theistic entity. I think a religion is the more theistic, the more it is interpreted word-by-word, literally. The more the "believer" understands that words are symbols only and do not necessarily describe a "real reality", the more he turns into an atheist, nevertheless he can remain to be a highly spriitual person.

take the four Gosples, and take them literally word-by-word: and you end up with some Christian fundamentalists who wants to live by biblic rules from a thoisuand years ago and in post-medieval (or pre-medieval!) living conditions. Take the fours gospels and go beyond the word, refuse to understand the word "God" or "Father" as an idol, and you end up with Meister Eckehard or Jakob Böhme.

Me thinks, where there is theism, there may be dwelling emotions and superficial rapture, but there is no true religious experience. Religion needs atheism.

"Die Schrift is Schrift, sonst nichts,
Mein Trost ist Wesenheit,
Und daß Gott in mir spricht
das Wort der Ewigkeit."
(Angelus Silesius, 17th cent.)

[Perilscope]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Strange what misunderstandings there are about atheism, seem to be more an annoyance that there is somebody who refuses in believing one's own idols.

Exactly my thought's!

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Strange what misunderstandings there are about atheism, seem to be more an annoyance that there is somebody who refuses in believing one's own idols. I am atheist myself - and consider myself to be a very religious person.

You cannot be both a "very religious person" and an atheist at the same time. That's more of an oxymoron than "military intelligence". Religion is not just a belief in some form of "higher power", but also a prescribed set of beliefs within an organized body of dogma and usually laid down through a hierarchal structure (Catholicism offering the best example, where you have the Pope at the top, nearly divine, then the arch bishops, bishops, priests, brothers, and then followers in that order from top to bottom). If you are Atheist, then you reject completely any type of God figure and naturally all organized religion attached to it. Agnosticism isn't quite so extreme, it allows you to reject organized religion but remain open to a God figure.

You confuse religion with spirituality. You can be a very spiritual person yet belong to no organized religion or attend any religious ceremonies or subscribe to any of its dogma - or you can be both spiritual and religious (they are not mutually exclusive).

FYI, from the Buddhist material I've read (top of the list is "Buddhism without beliefs" by Stephen Bachelor) I've come to think of it as less of a religion and more of an applied philosophy. But that's just my opinion, I'm still new to this eastern "religion" but I like what I've read of it so far and identify with its philosophy much more so than I do with the Catholic teachings I was raised with.

[Happy Times]

Wake up people.

[Immacolata]

Originally Posted by scandium

FYI, from the Buddhist material I've read (top of the list is "Buddhism without beliefs" by Stephen Bachelor) I've come to think of it as less of a religion and more of an applied philosophy. But that's just my opinion, I'm still new to this eastern "religion" but I like what I've read of it so far and identify with its philosophy much more so than I do with the Catholic teachings I was raised with.

Sorry to disappoint you, but that is just western romantic thinking. Socalled orientalism that puts buddhism where it doesn't belong. Buddhism has been a religious tool as well. In medieval Japan, the buddhist monks where a major headache for the ruling clans. When they perceived that buddhist law was not duly upheld, they took up arms and stormed the capital. Buddhist religion was as intervowen in politics then as it is today in other religions.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by scandium

You cannot be both a "very religious person" and an atheist at the same time. That's more of an oxymoron than "military intelligence". Religion is not just a belief in some form of "higher power", but also a prescribed set of beliefs within an organized body of dogma and usually laid down through a hierarchal structure (Catholicism offering the best example, where you have the Pope at the top, nearly divine, then the arch bishops, bishops, priests, brothers, and then followers in that order from top to bottom). If you are Atheist, then you reject completely any type of God figure and naturally all organized religion attached to it. Agnosticism isn't quite so extreme, it allows you to reject organized religion but remain open to a God figure.

You confuse religion with spirituality. You can be a very spiritual person yet belong to no organized religion or attend any religious ceremonies or subscribe to any of its dogma - or you can be both spiritual and religious (they are not mutually exclusive).

FYI, from the Buddhist material I've read (top of the list is "Buddhism without beliefs" by Stephen Bachelor) I've come to think of it as less of a religion and more of an applied philosophy. But that's just my opinion, I'm still new to this eastern "religion" but I like what I've read of it so far and identify with its philosophy much more so than I do with the Catholic teachings I was raised with.

We differ on your view of religion, which has become apparent before. For you, it is a set of historical constellations, that's why you do not differ between "church" and "Christianity", while the content of the thoughts is not so much of interest for you. In principle, it is a tendency to relativize differing contents again, and clean them of differences. For me, religion is the expression of spirituality, and alive spiritual expoerience is not about rituals and idols, but directness (Unmittelbarkeit), and unblinded perception of the reality of cósmos/existence/mind. Thus I say that religion and theism are excluding each other, and that true religion as an expression of alive, healthy spirituality necessarily must be atheistic, non-theistic.

I think and teach this in accordance with Buddhist psychology, religion, philosophy or however you may call it. It is not about how you call it, but direct experience, that's why Siddharta did not actively founded a tradition of theological dispute, like in Christian church. Jesus also did not do that, nowehre he has founded a church. The church came not before Paul. And this guy is a completely different story. One should not match up Church with Christianity. If anything, the church represents "Paulanism".

"Strange what misunderstandings there are about atheism, seem to be more an annoyance that there is somebody who refuses in believing one's own idols." - Or ideas, I should add.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by scandium

You cannot be both a "very religious person" and an atheist at the same time. That's more of an oxymoron than "military intelligence". Religion is not just a belief in some form of "higher power", but also a prescribed set of beliefs within an organized body of dogma and usually laid down through a hierarchal structure (Catholicism offering the best example, where you have the Pope at the top, nearly divine, then the arch bishops, bishops, priests, brothers, and then followers in that order from top to bottom). If you are Atheist, then you reject completely any type of God figure and naturally all organized religion attached to it. Agnosticism isn't quite so extreme, it allows you to reject organized religion but remain open to a God figure.

You confuse religion with spirituality. You can be a very spiritual person yet belong to no organized religion or attend any religious ceremonies or subscribe to any of its dogma - or you can be both spiritual and religious (they are not mutually exclusive).

I think you've got it right.