Indonesia: Angry Muslim crowd attacks Java churches

[Blood_splat]

Sam Harris

[August]

Originally Posted by Krauter

Half the Muslim and Islamic people I know denounce this so called jihad against the West.

Only half? That spells a lot more trouble than you may realize.

[Krauter]

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

Seriously?? tl;dr. ?? Are you even interested in a serious discussion? It's not like Skybird went off on several tangents, yes he probably could've wrote a shorter piece, but the stuff adressing your comment takes 5 min's tops to read.

Well Mr. High and Mighty, sorry I don't feel like reading text walls when I roll out of bed and prepare for exams... And if I wasn't interested I wouldn't be here, simple isn't it? Just for you I'll go ahead and try and answer these questions

@Rockstar: Call it good faith, trust in my peers, 'kumbaya moment' or what ever you will. If a friend tells me that they do not believe in something in their faith, I am inclined to believe them. Much similar to how I was raised Christian, but think Jesus wasn't the son of God. I'm not going to bring my faith into this discussion.

But let me just say, I've had Iranien friends who denounce the things that are going on in their country, and after a few weeks/months/what have you, I find theres something off about them, much the same, I've met people who come from the former USSR, three from Iran, one from Azerbaijan, two from Iraq and besides that some of my family fled from Lebanon in the 80s and 90s. These people denounce the regimes, religious zealots and the like that were in place that forced them to flee, and in turn haven't so much adopted a "Western" way of living, but turned out to still be quite respectable, if not 'cool' people, all while still sticking to some of their cultural customs.

As for 'War is Deception', I understand the points you're talking about. I'm not however going to go question my friends on if they're lying to me because they secretly want to convert me or get rid of me thats just nonsense and plays exactly into what I said earlier where this 'conflict' is being blown out of proportion by people on both sides claiming its the next great human conflict.

That's all I've got for now, I have other mental commitments to think about for the next few hours. I'll get back to this when I am able to put my full attention into it.

Edit: @ August; how so?

Sorry keep Editing:

the_tyrant: I don't really believe that they've inherited the "black hipster" icon. I guess it really depends on where you are/what the predominant style in your area is. In my hometown we had 'emo' muslims, Orthodox (ie: turban, burka, etc), here I see muslims that mix orthodox 'styles' with 'western' styles and the like.

Also, on the point that the jihad encompasses converting peoples of other faiths. I am sorry, but though they may consider that a jihad or 'war', I do not. Fighting to convert more and more people is, from what I've seen, the aim of any religion. Look at Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Atheists even... All will try to bend you to their views.

@ Sky; know that the 'tl;dr' comment was in no way meant to be disrespectful.

Krauter

[August]

Originally Posted by Krauter

Edit: @ August; how so?

If half oppose then the other half must support. If your sample is at all representative of Muslims as a whole that means there is a lot of supprt for the jihadis.

[Krauter]

Very true,

I am not going to recant on my statement, but as a young adult, saying "Half of my friends... this and that" does not mean 50/50 split.

I am not going to pull that statement as what you say has merit, but I still prefer to look at the situation optimistically.

[Rockstar]

@Rockstar: Call it good faith, trust in my peers, 'kumbaya moment' or what ever you will. If a friend tells me that they do not believe in something in their faith, I am inclined to believe them. Much similar to how I was raised Christian, but think Jesus wasn't the son of God. I'm not going to bring my faith into this discussion.

Krauter I understand what you are saying I would be too so inclined.

But it is written in their books of faith like Haddith which teaches a Muslim it is permitted to use exaggerations to cover the truth and occasionally make bold faced lies as a core part of advancing shria law and Islam. He may tell you he disagrees with the particular measures but his goal is the same as the terrorists.

As for Iranians there are a substantial number who will have nothing to do with Islam and the current Islamic Republic government. The bunch I associate with usually refer to themselves as Persians and some even go so far as longing for the days like when Cyrus ruled. He was to them a great king, when he ruled was trade, science, thought, freedoms, unlike they have now under Islam.

[Krauter]

I wouldn't go so far to say their goals are the same as terrorists... But I see your point, even if I'm inclined to disagree

Yes, most of the Iraniens that I meet that have fled call themselves Persians. Still, have had some that call themselves Persians and end up being kind of loony, as well as others who are the nicest people you'll meet.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Krauter I understand what you are saying I would be too so inclined.

But it is written in their books of faith like Haddith which teaches a Muslim it is permitted to use exaggerations to cover the truth and occasionally make bold faced lies as a core part of advancing shria law and Islam. He may tell you he disagrees with the particular measures but his goal is the same as the terrorists.

As for Iranians there are a substantial number who will have nothing to do with Islam and the current Islamic Republic government. The bunch I associate with usually refer to themselves as Persians and some even go so far as longing for the days like when Cyrus ruled. He was to them a great king, when he ruled was trade, science, thought, freedoms, unlike they have now under Islam.

^ copythis. For mew, Iran was my niciest stay of all Muslim countries I were in. The population is very diverse, and different from the Palestinians and Arabs. There is a strong burgoisie with a strionbg sense for education, and thre influence of Western culture and the colonial time cannot be overseen in the bigger cities. Yes,m there are also many nutty and crazy people, hysterics and fanatics, and the autocracy that laid itself like a layer of poisenous gas over the country. But still, politically the entitity of the state of Iran is our utmost enemy, no doubt, so is Islam. But in no other Muslim mcountry I also met so many relaxed and quite educated people that were anything but fundamentalists.

I use to take a strong position on Iran saince two or three years now, that is true. But I do not like at all the need to do so, and for quite some parts of their population I feel sorry over the prospects of war.

Damn Islam. It just messes up things and turns people crazy. Iran could be a very beautiful country, else.

I also liked the polite manners I often met there.

But for every good and freindly guy there is, a crazy nuthead or a fanatical RG is lurking around the corner. This also is Iran, and it should not be forgotten. Especially the bRG have strengthened their foothold in the civilian economical fields and in the industry in recent years. They turn Iran more and mnore into their very own dictatorship. Nothing seems to work in Iran against the RG, and the Ayatollahs anyway. It reminds me of the SA in Nazi Germany, just much stronger and much more influential.

[Krauter]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Damn Islam. It just messes up things and turns people crazy.

Damn Christianity and Judaism. It messes things up also and turns people crazy.


Abolish religion as a whole then.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Krauter

Damn Christianity and Judaism. It messes things up also and turns people crazy.


Abolish religion as a whole then.

Yes indeed - and I often said that. And still - the Christian world, influenced by Greek philosophy as well, climbed much higher on the ladder of cultural acchievements and science and knowledge and human rights, whereas Arabia since Muhamadd's appearance fell behind and stagnated, becoming prey of fatalism and obscure ideologic fanatism, loosing a position of initial scientific and economic superiority in the medieval.

Of the three desert dogmas, Islam is by far the worst. Maybe because it is not much more than just a distorted cheap copy of the two others, where Christianity could be seen as a reformed version of Judaism.

I differ between Chrstianity and the church, though. Church and the Christ's teachings do not go well together. If you do not know it, I myself consider myself as a spiritual atheist.

The one thing I like about Judaism is that they do not actively and aggressively missionise.

[August]

Originally Posted by Krauter

Damn Christianity and Judaism. It messes things up also and turns people crazy.


Abolish religion as a whole then.

How do you abolish religion and still dare to claim we are a free society? Shall we all go out and get Mao suits?

[Krauter]

In my opinion, religion is almost always the root cause of any conflict or tension. However, abolishing religion would only cause social collapse, both in the West and East

[tater]

I'm an (outspoken at times) atheist. Even "anti-theist" depending on mood. I have no love for any religion I know of (I remain agnostic on deism and those religions I am know nothing about since how could I know?).

All that said, I think it's fair to look at what empirical data we have on societies and what they have accomplished and given the world because of—or IN SPITE OF—religion.

The entirety of western civilization came out of a Judeo-Christian religious background. Could it have gone further (or faster) under secularism? Sure, quite possibly. None the lest, even taking the "devil's advocate" position that religion harmed enlightened thought, we got there in spite of Christianity and Judaism. The Islamic world is given loads of credit for not destroying all ancient knowledge during the middle ages, but that was in fact the Islamic world's last valuable contribution to the world. They've give us nothing since (except a number of really excellent carpets I have in my home (since the non-representational patterns actually own something to their religion, otherwise it would be merely cultural)).

Has Christianity informed violence? Absolutely. The Holocaust can draw an unbroken line through Catholic (and later Protestant) history. When there was a good, theological choice that might have mitigated anti-semitism, it was almost invariably not chosen. That said, we are now past that in the West. This is not the same world it was in 1930—unless you are a Muslim. The trouble with Islam is that unlike Christianity, it is not "hijacking" to make it violent.

[Gerald]

[QUOTE=Krauter;1594525]In my opinion, religion is almost always the root cause of any conflict or tension. However, abolishing religion would only cause social collapse, both in the West and East[/QUOTE Much truth behind those words that religion, are behind conflicts around the world

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

How do you abolish religion and still dare to claim we are a free society? Shall we all go out and get Mao suits?

Implications like this are often made - if you are not religious, than you are automatically communist/fascist/Maoist. The idea is that since these three ideologies do not agree on theistic ideas, atheism automatically is any of these in return.

But that is wrong. Every German Shepard dog is dog, but not all dogs are German Shepard dogs.

Considering that the greatest crimes and acts of barbarism have been committed in the name of various religions and religious cults, from the Mayas to the medieval witch hunts and religious prosecutions in all parts of the Christian and Islamic and African and Mayan/American etc. world, there is also no argument in saying without theistic religions there cannot be any ethics and moral values. Morality obviously can develop even without present religious beliefs, or beliefs of a theistic nature. They even can develop despite the fact that any given theistic religion may be present. Any Christina/Jewish/Muslim set of moral values, is moral values. But not all moral values that we would characterize as humane by their rule and essence, must be Christian/Jewish/Islamic, or theistic. Buddhism for example is an atheist religion (if one wan ts to call it a religion), but is extremely responsible in the individual ethical behavior of a person, not by believing in deities, but by understanding the link between cause and effect.

Atheism does not automatically mean totalitarianism. Morals do not need religions as a basis.

Totalitarianism can be atheist (f.e. fascism), or religious (Islam). Morals can blossom to real humanism due to the presence of religious teachings, or - if the teachings are inhumane, right in resistance to or despite the presence of said religious teachings.

In the end, the final criterion deciding things: lies right inside the individual person. We call it conscience. That's why raping a woman or beating to death a poor beggar under the bridge always remain to be acts of evil, no matter what any religion may have to say pro or against it.