Terror attack in Paris today

[SortaCreative]

Ultimately you do not need religion to be charitable, appreciate art or learn right from wrong, but it certainly helps a lot of people do all of these, and theres no reason to think that a world without religion would be enlightened and sophisticated society, I for one believe it would be much the opposite.

Edit: Hanley just posted microseconds before me so, idk. He may have said something i'm about to say.

My basis for believing that without religion we would better for it is simply the logic of not believing in a something that cannot be proven or substantiated. The simple Santa Claus analogy works. It's nice to believe that as a child your good actions are rewarded with gifts at Christmas by an all knowing being but really that's just the carrot and Santa is the string. He's not real. Are our lives less magical and romantic knowing that? Yes. But do we continue to believe in the lie? No. I'm not above saying that it would be kind of cool to still believe in Santa but the overwhelming evidence that contradicts his existence is too much to ignore. It would be ignorant of me to continue to believe in him.

I also have a hard time believing that these Holy Books are living breathing documents that can be altered and changed over time or through interpretation. Which is it? Is God's word law or can we change it when we realise he may have been wrong about how to treat women? And now, if we can change it, then what good was his word in the first place? Can't we change the whole book to fit 2015 and move on? If so – why not just forget the book and just move on?

I actually don't understand what point you were trying to make with the story about Hillel the Elder. Sorry, I'm guessing you're trying to prove a point about the story having different interpretations but the one you presented to me left me murky at best. To which I would ask, do we really want to live in a world where teachings and morality lessons are vague at best.

As I said before, I don't disagree with the good religion can do. Or the good it has done. I understand that sometimes people need religion to rationalise an otherwise bleak existence but the reality is life is cruel. The gunman that killed the police officer as he was defenceless on the ground was cruel and maybe even evil. I can understand the comfort some may gain from taking such acts of hatred and elevating them to a higher plain that they may not understand. God's work, his will and his divine plan for us all. I completely understand the appeal and trust me, it probably would have been easier on myself if I was able to just rationalise all the shitty things that have happened to me as my fate. That all those bad things were just what God was testing me with. But the reality is it's not. It's just life. Or the laws of nature. Or plain random chance. Not God.

I don't even judge people that may use faith to make sense of the world. It's not a nice place and bad things happen. No one likes to be hurt. Everyone likes to be loved.

I would not disagree that religion can help people, compel people even, to be good. To do good. To be charitable, to help their fellow man but then I do have to question are these people inherently good? Are you better than me because you do good things in the hope of reward or because it makes your God happy? That strikes me as rather selfish rather than good. I do good things for selfish reasons to, don't get me wrong, but at least I'm honest about it. I do them to feel better in myself. Sometimes at least.

So what's better here the blunt honesty of a good deed can make you feel good or the promise of entry into Heaven? And if it's the promise of entry into Heaven then why not continue to believe in Santa?

Also – two final thoughts. One, I'd genuinely fascinated about what you saw, heard or was told that made you turn from an atheist standpoint to becoming religious. I'm not trying to be offensive but that's really interesting to me. Second, I can't stop looking at your signature.

[Everlong]

I don't particularly disagree with anything that @Hanley or @SortaCreative are saying in this topic except for the fact that we would likely have a more "enlightened" or "sophisticated" (or whatever word you want to choose) society without organized religion.

For one, that's a claim that's absolutely impossible to substantiate in any sort of reasonable way. Organized religion is nearly as old as mankind itself, so we have no way at all of knowing what society would look like if it were to suddenly disappear or have never existed at all.

Two, you have to consider that if there has damage that has been done to society because of organized religious constructs (which I think we all can agree that there has been significant damage done by organized religion at various times throughout history), you have to consider how we would reverse that damage if we were to abolish organized religion in today's world.

Consider the fact that there are so many people in the world, call them extremists, call them devout followers, whatever you want, that have had their religious beliefs ingrained in them for generations. If these people look to their religious hierarchy for guidance, hypothetically, abolishing that would leave them high and dry. Their mindset would never change, and they'd be resentful toward the people that worked to erase organized religion from the world.

Let's use the Catholic church as an example. Rather than telling the Vatican to fuck off, shouldn't we consider it to be their responsibility to guide everyone who follows that religion in a way that absolutely discourages hate, discrimination and violence? We're already seeing a major shift in attitude under the current papal regime that I think is an indicator of bigger changes to come down the road (very slowly, but definitely surely).

It's more likely that we would succeed in creating a better world by overhauling these religions than we would by abolishing them, I'd say.

Of course neither's going to ever happen so it's all a moot point. But that's where I stand. I have a hard time dismissing any of the world's major religions, including Islam, as being inherently bad, even in their structures. But many of them do need a dramatic facelift.

[AkydefGoldberg]

On your oppressing women and there being specific tenants in the faith that go against normal values, intrigued by what those are if you wouldn't mind acknowledge some for me to try and discuss.

Mostly, things found in this study / pamphlet. It's written with an objective, so the tone is biased, but it lists sources, if you'd rather check those out.

I'm sorry but I stopped reading as soon as I read Robert Spencer. I just can't take anything of what he says, as you've suggested, due to his bias. I hope having read that, this website might be worth a read if you have a spare moment

Unfortunately, and it's something I'll touch upon now with Taj's quote he produced, that it's so easy - especially for the far-right - to take a quote and make that quote definitive without adding context.

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. - Surat An-Nisā, 4:34 (I think, forgive me if I got that wrong)

It's a valid quote you bring and it's one that's used very regularly to - pardon the pun - to beat Islam with a stick as a way of saying it endorses wife beating etc. If context is added then the impact of that Surah is nullified. A man is advised to try and talk to his wife, emotionally and the hitting is the final resort but again from my understanding, it's for when issues of adultery occur and they aren't allowed to hit them on the face/limbs and by hitting, it's a gentle prod not a full force whack. Again, that's my brief understanding (even I'm no expert but I try to!) but sadly, like you touched upon before relating to culture, it's admitted that even 'Muslims' in some part of the world may use that quote for their own intentions but that's down to education and understanding.

Ultimately you do not need religion to be charitable, appreciate art or learn right from wrong, but it certainly helps a lot of people do all of these, and theres no reason to think that a world without religion would be enlightened and sophisticated society, I for one believe it would be much the opposite.

[b]I also have a hard time believing that these Holy Books are living breathing documents that can be altered and changed over time or through interpretation. Which is it? Is God's word law or can we change it when we realise he may have been wrong about how to treat women? And now, if we can change it, then what good was his word in the first place? Can't we change the whole book to fit 2015 and move on? If so – why not just forget the book and just move on?

In the UK, there are a small group of Muslims who feel exactly that that the Quran should be "re-written" to bring it into line of today's society which I don't agree with but then that begins another battle between those who feel Islam needs reform and those - like myself - who believe the Quran needs to better taught and understood to those who are receiving. I don't believe Islam is not immune to criticism or further analysis and tbh (at this moment in time, sadly, I'm not at that stage spiritually to undertake that piece of work) I think it's a case of education but sometimes culture is a convenient way to use quotes/practices for their own gain.

[UTK]

On your oppressing women and there being specific tenants in the faith that go against normal values, intrigued by what those are if you wouldn't mind acknowledge some for me to try and discuss.

Mostly, things found in this study / pamphlet. It's written with an objective, so the tone is biased, but it lists sources, if you'd rather check those out.

I'm sorry but I stopped reading as soon as I read Robert Spencer. I just can't take anything of what he says, as you've suggested, due to his bias. I hope having read that, this website might be worth a read if you have a spare moment

The problem is...it doesn't matter to me what the Koran says. It's Islamic Sharia law, the supposed moral code of Islam. There are millions of Muslims following these laws and doing the opposite of what the Koran teaches, according to your link. The mistreatment of women in Islamic society has been known for quite some time. When women are, for example, being stoned to death, in modern times and it's deemed as acceptable, it upsets me, as it should upset anybody.

Bina Shah, a Pakistani writer, writes a good article here about the lack of free will that women have in Pakistan. Honor killings like the one Shah talks about have come about through Islamic society. Is there a part of the Koran that supports honor killings? Probably not, but it's become ingrained in societies that are run by Islamic culture and Islamic Sharia law.

Women have no rights to their children, daughters are treated as property and can be "sold", if a woman is raped she is held responsible. According to the UN, nearly 90 percent of Afghani women suffer from domestic abuse. Child marriage, genital mutilation, the list goes on.

Islam is being used as a defense for all these actions, and whether or not these defenses are accurate (which they're mostly not), the fact that the religion is used to defend these actions and laws is enough. It's the crooked application of an old religion in a modern context.

Christian men once used the Bible as an excuse to put women down, to oppress them, to beat them. But this was over 200 years ago. We need to address Islamic societies' inability to adapt to modern times and adhere to basic human rights. We can't keep saying, "Nope, just a few Muslims are like this, they're misrepresenting the religion!" Yes, they're misrepresenting the religion, but these aren't just a few isolated events. This is a major problem, and its primary defense is Islam. And nobody seems to be able to tackle the issue and make it large enough, because Western media seems split between "Fuck Muslims, they're all terrorist scumbags" versus "Muslims are peaceful, there are only a couple of bad eggs, nothing else any islamic society does is bad because they're a people of peace look how tolerant we sound." It shouldn't be this way. These societies will keep being this way unless something is said, on a large scale.

Every time a very bad example arises, such as Malala Yousafzai being shot in the head for trying to attend school, there is public outcry. For about a week. Then it gets brushed under the rug again. This is something that the U.N. should be involving itself in, yet it hasn't tried anything. Or, it hasn't tried anything well.

These societies are not save for other groups either, such as gays. In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Yemen, homosexuality is punishable by death. And it is illegal in every other Islamic country. And, again, their treatment of a group is justified by the Islamic Sharia laws, the "laws of Allah." Although, in the case of gays, I'm pretty sure the Koran does say something supporting the death of gays. ("..For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)". Forgive me if that's an inaccurate quote, and correct me if it is.

So I see what your point is: it's not Islam itself, it's those who misconstrue its message. And I get it. But that doesn't matter. The application of Islam, or what millions see as the application of Islam, is hurting us as a society. And I don't think it should be continually defended. More people need to say something. Certain media outlets will continually attack Christianity in America for getting in the way of gays getting married, but won't say anything about the social injustices in the Middle East? Like they're afraid to criticize Islam, but not Christianity? I don't get it.

[CubsIn5]

-Nominates thread to be achieved as the first discussion about religion on the internet to be >1 page and not get insane-

Like seriously can we imagine this thread on ...the site that shall not be named? (Also I'll respond to some stuff later)

[AkydefGoldberg]

The problem is...it doesn't matter to me what the Koran says. It's Islamic Sharia law, the supposed moral code of Islam. There are millions of Muslims following these laws and doing the opposite of what the Koran teaches, according to your link. The mistreatment of women in Islamic society has been known for quite some time. When women are, for example, being stoned to death, in modern times and it's deemed as acceptable, it upsets me, as it should upset anybody.

Bina Shah, a Pakistani writer, writes a good article here about the lack of free will that women have in Pakistan. Honor killings like the one Shah talks about have come about through Islamic society. Is there a part of the Koran that supports honor killings? Probably not, but it's become ingrained in societies that are run by Islamic culture and Islamic Sharia law.

Women have no rights to their children, daughters are treated as property and can be "sold", if a woman is raped she is held responsible. According to the UN, nearly 90 percent of Afghani women suffer from domestic abuse. Child marriage, genital mutilation, the list goes on.

Islam is being used as a defense for all these actions, and whether or not these defenses are accurate (which they're mostly not), the fact that the religion is used to defend these actions and laws is enough. It's the crooked application of an old religion in a modern context.

Christian men once used the Bible as an excuse to put women down, to oppress them, to beat them. But this was over 200 years ago. We need to address Islamic societies' inability to adapt to modern times and adhere to basic human rights. We can't keep saying, "Nope, just a few Muslims are like this, they're misrepresenting the religion!" Yes, they're misrepresenting the religion, but these aren't just a few isolated events. This is a major problem, and its primary defense is Islam. And nobody seems to be able to tackle the issue and make it large enough, because Western media seems split between "Fuck Muslims, they're all terrorist scumbags" versus "Muslims are peaceful, there are only a couple of bad eggs, nothing else any islamic society does is bad because they're a people of peace look how tolerant we sound." It shouldn't be this way. These societies will keep being this way unless something is said, on a large scale.

Every time a very bad example arises, such as Malala Yousafzai being shot in the head for trying to attend school, there is public outcry. For about a week. Then it gets brushed under the rug again. This is something that the U.N. should be involving itself in, yet it hasn't tried anything. Or, it hasn't tried anything well.

These societies are not save for other groups either, such as gays. In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Yemen, homosexuality is punishable by death. And it is illegal in every other Islamic country. And, again, their treatment of a group is justified by the Islamic Sharia laws, the "laws of Allah." Although, in the case of gays, I'm pretty sure the Koran does say something supporting the death of gays. ("..For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)". Forgive me if that's an inaccurate quote, and correct me if it is.

So I see what your point is: it's not Islam itself, it's those who misconstrue its message. And I get it. But that doesn't matter. The application of Islam, or what millions see as the application of Islam, is hurting us as a society. And I don't think it should be continually defended. More people need to say something. Certain media outlets will continually attack Christianity in America for getting in the way of gays getting married, but won't say anything about the social injustices in the Middle East? Like they're afraid to criticize Islam, but not Christianity? I don't get it.

The application of Sharia Law is in its minority, even in countries where the majority are Muslims. It's applied in countries that do have Muslim majority but on a smaller scale.

What you've said IMO, just feels, a situation where the use of Sharia Law in those countries you've mentioned is a case of "well, let's use Sharia Law to my own advantage in terms of keeping my wife in check and making sure that I don't get shamed in society" rather than a "let's follow Sharia Law because it will bring me closer to my Creator".

The quote you've given is correct but it's relating to a situation at time when homosexuality was common and an important part of Islam, like Christianity and other religions, is that man and woman have been designed for each other but I would add, that it doesn't mean there should be violence against those - even Muslims - who are homosexual. It's the interpretation that needs to be addressed. People use quotes from the Hadith (a collection of sayings from the Prophet Muhammed) as justification of violent deaths for homosexuals but again those Hadiths' authenticity - due to how many different sources there - are open for debate and further, far reaching analysis.

[SortaCreative]

People use quotes from the Hadith (a collection of sayings from the Prophet Muhammed) as justification of violent deaths for homosexuals but again those Hadiths' authenticity - due to how many different sources there - are open for debate and further, far reaching analysis.

So you're not sure what is actually God's word as opposed to just someone elses?

[AkydefGoldberg]

People use quotes from the Hadith (a collection of sayings from the Prophet Muhammed) as justification of violent deaths for homosexuals but again those Hadiths' authenticity - due to how many different sources there - are open for debate and further, far reaching analysis.

So you're not sure what is actually God's word as opposed to just someone elses?

No. I was saying in relation to the Hadiths, there's a multitude of different sources so for me, atm, difficult to judge which sources are best to trust and which aren't. I guess it requires sitting down and doing your [my own] research.