Is Islamic faith reasonable.

[1robin]

First of all, your constant use of a facepalm is quite disingenuous.

Secondly, it would have been called the Muslim Expansions rather than the Muslim Conquests. The word "Conquest" is used for a very good reason. Is there some misunderstanding of the term you're having?



Yes, I did, it was sparked from a barrage of Islamic propagandists extolling the virtues and booty of the Muslim Conquests.



Whatever Muslims were "spreading" it most certainly wasn't theirs to begin with but was instead booty plundered from other countries they conquered.

This part of Islam's history is one that I have not researched deeply. I have always been told of this supposedly peaceful period, but I could never figure out how muslims peacefully counquored their way across the mediteranian world. No one peacefully gives up their own country unless it is to avoid annihalation You seem to be knowledgable on the subject, I look forward to your future posts.

 

[arthra]

You have to give credit where credit is due...

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[1robin]

The point being my friend it was violence among Christians....! this caused disillusionment with religion and the rise of Communism in Russia..as a professional historian I thought you'd be interested.

Are you referring to me as a professional historian. Why? There was violence among a myriad of groups, one of them was Christian. The violence was not based on a religous pretext, nor did a religous motiavtion have anything to do with it . What is the point? maybe you are making point that is so different from the one that was being discussed that I am not seeeing it. I agree to some extent with your disillusionment being a contribution to comunism but there are many other factors. But I still don't know why you are making this point in a religous discussion on Islam thread. I don't mind it I just don't understand it.

 

[1robin]

You have to give credit where credit is due...

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your link was very interesting but did not cover the violence we are discussing to any legnth. I am aware and do not deny that Islam's culture produced many excellent advances in science and art. I will however add a qualifier that their advances were due mainly to their preservation of greek learning which they then took the next step. Catholic Europe in it's infinate wisdom at the same time suppressed greek and roman scholarship as well as denying people access to the bible in their own language and so the dark ages. When the Catholic Church lost it's stranglehold on people then the enlightenment began and Europe then began making breakthroughs in science. Many of the world's cultures have contributed breakthroughs in sciences and art non more so than the west.

 

[Wiets]

Islamic faith is just as unreasonable as christianity or judaism.

All of them creates division amongst people and conflict and hate and violence.

They are all just the same.

 

[Revoltingest]

If it were reasonable, it wouldn't be called "faith".

 

[1robin]

Islamic faith is just as unreasonable as christianity or judaism.

All of them creates division amongst people and conflict and hate and violence.

They are all just the same.

Yes atheism has been the epitamy of tolerence and wisdom. Stalin alone killed 15million compared to the entire several hundred years of the inquisition's few thousand. Even a miner league atheist, Mao's few hundred thousand deaths dwarf Bin Laden's 3000-4000. I would not look to atheism to find peacefull coexistance.

 

[1robin]

If it were reasonable, it wouldn't be called "faith".

There is nothing inherent about faith that makes unreasonableness a compenent. Many of the things all of us hold to be true are based on faith.

 

[gnostic]

Yes atheism has been the epitamy of tolerence and wisdom. Stalin alone killed 15million compared to the entire several hundred years of the inquisition's few thousand. Even a miner league atheist, Mao's few hundred thousand deaths dwarf Bin Laden's 3000-4000. I would not look to atheism to find peacefull coexistance.

Stalin may have been atheist, but he didn't order people kill for the sake of atheism.

Atheism is just an opposite concept to theism (the belief of the existence of deity/deities). Atheism is not political concepts or military procedure/exercise. It is not a social status.

Atheist is neither job position, nor rank. For anyone to think atheism make a difference is either deceiving themselves or misinformed or worse, trying to deceive others (like propaganda) in order to demonize people who don't believe in god or follow a religion.

Here is an example. A person can become a carpenter. He can work as builder or craft furniture, or whatever...it doesn't matter. His religious belief or lack of it, doesn't his job position or career as a carpenter. So you can be carpenter and atheist, Christian, Muslim or Hindu.

My point is that atheism is very limited in scope.

I am not defending him or his action. It was more about power than religion - political power (communism) and militarily/imperialistic power (territorial). All the changes he implemented affected every parts of society - socially, economically and politically. Everyone were victims of Stalin's policies, not just Christians or Jews; no one was safe.

But using Stalin or Mao as atheists, and not political/military leaders with clear political motives, as attack on atheism, is simply point-scoring by some Christians, who enjoy demonizing and persecuting others with religious bigotry.

 

[1robin]

Stalin may have been atheist, but he didn't order people kill for the sake of atheism.

Atheism is just an opposite concept to theism (the belief of the existence of deity/deities). Atheism is not political concepts or military procedure/exercise. It is not a social status.

Atheist is neither job position, nor rank. For anyone to think atheism make a difference is either deceiving themselves or misinformed or worse, trying to deceive others (like propaganda) in order to demonize people who don't believe in god or follow a religion.

Here is an example. A person can become a carpenter. He can work as builder or craft furniture, or whatever...it doesn't matter. His religious belief or lack of it, doesn't his job position or career as a carpenter. So you can be carpenter and atheist, Christian, Muslim or Hindu.

My point is that atheism is very limited in scope.

I am not defending him or his action. It was more about power than religion - political power (communism) and militarily/imperialistic power (territorial). All the changes he implemented affected every parts of society - socially, economically and politically. Everyone were victims of Stalin's policies, not just Christians or Jews; no one was safe.

But using Stalin or Mao as atheists, and not political/military leaders with clear political motives, as attack on atheism, is simply point-scoring by some Christians, who enjoy demonizing and persecuting others with religious bigotry.

I am very familiar with the aspects contained in a discussion of this type. Stalin's as well as most other atheist's action derived from the framework of atheism. Something that atheism can never produce is a justified reason for the sanctity of life. All genocides take place in violation of that principle that can only be justified by a religous ideal. Stalin was chosen by Lennin based on Marx's principle of hatred of religion mainly because of his complete rejection of religion. It was a stated goal to wipe out faith by any means. Communism is a direct result itself from a rejection of faith. There is no way justified way to seperate the actions of Stalin, etc..... from their ideologies. I could claim that the crusades were mainly about land and wealth but that is disingenuous and inaccurate. Even someone acting primarily for other reasons can still only find the justification for their actions in atheism and evolution. Hitler was a nominal Catholic in his early life, he was definately no commited Christian by any sense, but when asked how he justified his actions he claimed atheistic evolutionary reasons.

Atheism as opposed to agnosticism is a positive belief that there is no God. There are many profound implications of this idea that effect many of the most crucial decisions that men make.

Since religion is an ideology that has profoundly effected man's entire history then the absence of it would be just as radical.

Here is a more relevant example. Two doctors (one Christian and one Atheist) in Hitler's Germany are ordered to perform horrible experiments on Jewish children. The Christian refuses to based on his faith and it's requirements and lack of fear of death derived from his faith. The Atheist reasons that maybe he can do more total good in the long run, after all there is no sanctity to human life, and after all the atheistic philosophers have said that "In the absence of God all things are permissable" Dostoevsky. In his very rational fear of his own death he resolves to cause the countless deaths of others. The war ends in two years and he has created no good to balance the masssive amount of evil. He sustains himself by the belief that in atheistic determinism there isn't freewill anyway, or right, or wrong. I could have easily and consistently with atheism made this much worse but this is suffecient I think. The Christian because of his faith do no harm except to himself. The atheist logically reasoned out an excuse consitent with his beliefs and fear of death.

Atheism like any other world view is almost unlimitted in it's implications when actually applied.

As I stated their inspiration was not necessarily specifically atheism driven (even though that is very dabatable). Their justification however, in their own words in some cases, was driven by atheistic/evolutionary ideology.

I didn't use it to make an attack on atheists. Most are moral. It was used to repudiate an unjustified claim made against religion.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Even someone acting primarily for other reasons can still only find the justification for their actions in atheism and evolution.

Leave "evolution" out of it.

Hitler was a nominal Catholic in his early life, he was definately no commited Christian by any sense, but when asked how he justified his actions he claimed atheistic evolutionary reasons.

Citation please...

 

[Sunstone]

I am very familiar with the aspects contained in a discussion of this type. Stalin's as well as most other atheist's action derived from the framework of atheism. Something that atheism can never produce is a justified reason for the sanctity of life. All genocides take place in violation of that principle that can only be justified by a religous ideal. Stalin was chosen by Marx mainly because of his complete rejection of religion. It was a stated goal to wipe out faith by any means. Communism is a direct result itself from a rejection of faith. There is no way justified way to seperate the actions of Stalin, etc..... from their ideologies. I could claim that the crusades were mainly about land and wealth but that is disingenuous and inaccurate. Even someone acting primarily for other reasons can still only find the justification for their actions in atheism and evolution. Hitler was a nominal Catholic in his early life, he was definately no commited Christian by any sense, but when asked how he justified his actions he claimed atheistic evolutionary reasons.

You are sadly misinformed about everything. But do carry on. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Yes atheism has been the epitamy of tolerence and wisdom. Stalin alone killed 15million compared to the entire several hundred years of the inquisition's few thousand. Even a miner league atheist, Mao's few hundred thousand deaths dwarf Bin Laden's 3000-4000. I would not look to atheism to find peacefull coexistance.

LOL! These arguments from believers are not only dishonest but show a severe lack of understanding of what Communism is all about and those who took advantage of it to maintain a dictatorship.

Was Stalin's agenda entirely due to atheism or was it based on removing ALL threats to making Communism as a system work with him as it's ultimate dictator? It was the latter, of course, which includes changing ALL facets of societies and how they function, with religion only playing a minor role amongst many others.

Did Stalin only then murder believers and allow all the atheists to live? Of course not. He removed any threat to his position in power and all those who knew his agenda to keep that power.

Seriously 1robin, try get a handle on learning what actually happened over there and for what reasons rather than tossing out ridiculous, misinformed claims.

 

[Revoltingest]

Stalin's as well as most other atheist's action derived from the framework of atheism. Something that atheism can never produce is a justified reason for the sanctity of life.

This is true. Atheism shares a trait with science, which is that morality is not part of it.
But then, sanctity of life comes from individual desire for it. As the faithful show us, they
too will disregard sanctity of life at times. I'll spare you examples.

All genocides take place in violation of that principle that can only be justified by a religous ideal.

But once again, to violate this principal occurs regularly among religious folk, eg, religious
based terrorism, crime & war.

Stalin was chosen by Marx mainly because of his complete rejection of religion. It was a stated goal to wipe out faith by any means. Communism is a direct result itself from a rejection of faith. There is no way justified way to seperate the actions of Stalin, etc..... from their ideologies.

This is disproven by the calls of religious people that we move in a communistic direction.
And yet, many of us heathens prefer capitalism & librerty....you'll find a lot of atheists &
agnostics in the Libertarian Party.

I could claim that the crusades were mainly about land and wealth but that is disingenuous and inaccurate. Even someone acting primarily for other reasons can still only find the justification for their actions in atheism and evolution.

Oh, dear...evolution doesn't provide moral justification for anything at all.
It's just about how life tends to behave over time.

Hitler was a nominal Catholic in his early life, he was definately no commited Christian by any sense, but when asked how he justified his actions he claimed atheistic evolutionary reasons.

You'll need a really good link to support that claim. I've seen & looked into it before, but found
no evidence at all. Face it....Hitler was a Xian, albeit a really bad & strange example.

 

[F0uad]

People can argue if Hitler was a Christian or not that doesn't changes that Germany was a secular state even Bush Jr is a Christian but ordered killing of millions if not 100,000's while the country is secularist.

Anyway this whole atheist vs religion debate about who is more violent is so ridiculous each person should be judged by hes own actions and not simply of hes ''belief or unbelief'', though i personally think that Atheism does not forbid any harmful actions simply because they have no ''universal law'' while religious people have something to back up what is off-course a whole different topic.

 

[gnostic]

I am very familiar with the aspects contained in a discussion of this type. Stalin's as well as most other atheist's action derived from the framework of atheism.

What framework?

Atheism DEALS WITH ONLY CONCEPT or QUESTION OF THEISM. Theism is about belief in the existence of gods, and atheism don't believe in their existence. And nothing else.

There are no creed or dogma in atheism (or in agnosticism). There are no scriptures on atheism. There are also no moral codes and laws.

And like I said, atheism is not a political system. Nor is atheism can be equated to science, as some Christians seemed to confuse the 2 together.

Communism, socialism, capitalism, democracy, republic, monarch, are all political systems, and really have nothing to do with atheism. You are misguided to think that communism and atheism are one and the same.

Can atheist be a bad person? Yes. So can, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or any others - be bad or do unconscionable things.

 

[F0uad]

What framework?

Atheism DEALS WITH ONLY CONCEPT or QUESTION OF THEISM. Theism is about belief in the existence of gods, and atheism don't believe in their existence. And nothing else.

There are no creed or dogma in atheism (or in agnosticism). There are no scriptures on atheism. There are also no moral codes and laws.

And like I said, atheism is not a political system. Nor is atheism can be equated to science, as some Christians seemed to confuse the 2 together.

Communism, socialism, capitalism, democracy, republic, monarch, are all political systems, and really have nothing to do with atheism. You are misguided to think that communism and atheism are one and the same.

Can atheist be a bad person? Yes. So can, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or any others - be bad or do unconscionable things.

I don't want to interfere but secularism is based on humanism and atheism don't you think? (just a question)

 

[Road Warrior]

I don't want to interfere but secularism is based on humanism and atheism don't you think? (just a question)

Well there's "secularism" and then there is simply a secular government. The latter has always been a goal of having a government which is religiously neutral yet respectful of people's rights to believe as they please.

 

[gnostic]

I don't want to interfere but secularism is based on humanism and atheism don't you think? (just a question)

Humanism and secularism are 2 different things.

Secularism is about separating religion from state (STATE as in, like law and government). It is not about getting rid of religion or controlling what people believe...unless it is either left extremists (like socialists/communists) or right extremists (ultra-conservatives or dictators), in which case, it is not about secular humanism.

Sure, you can be secular humanist, but you can also be religious and humanist or theist humanist. Many of the artists and philosophers during the Italian Renaissance were Christians (Catholics) as well as humanists. Humanism is about world view and human values.

Stalin may support extreme secularism, but he is definitely not humanist. Secular humanists valued human dignity and liberty, and not sacrifice those basic human rights.

Secularism, if you would call it, is not atheism. They are 2 different things.

 

[1robin]

Leave "evolution" out of it.

I wish evolution was left out of everything.

Citation please...

Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust
by Jerry Bergman
Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’.

Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust
There are quite a few quotes by Hitler at this site.

I will add that evolutionary principles was not the primary reason Hitler exterminated Jews. It was however justification for it (or at least he believd it was)