# Islamic State



## philmud (31/8/14)

First I'm going to preface this by saying that I hope it won't generate general anti-Islamic commentary. I hope we can all acknowledge that the stated beliefs & actions of Islamic State fighters are not representative of a whole religion, but an extremist (mis)interpretation. I'd prefer this discussion to be about them & the situation in Syria & Northern Iraq specifically.

I'm interested in what people's thoughts are. I was staunchly opposed to the war in Iraq early last decade, though as time went on I was not in favour of immediate withdrawal (you make a mess, you help clan it up).

IS scare me though, and I think boots on the ground will become necessary. On the flip-side though, boots on the ground may be the kind if antagonism that has sustained the emergence of IS. Experts are suggesting this thing will span generations - that's some scary shit!


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (31/8/14)

And the Christians have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

Religion...the root of all evil...and war..


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (31/8/14)

I am only speaking for myself but I cant see this thread ever being a light hearted discussion and think this and other threads down this line should be moved to off topic forum and not be posted on the front page of a brewing forum.
We seem to be discussing more social issues than brewing these days .
My 2c
Nev


----------



## i-a-n (31/8/14)

Online Brewing Supplies said:


> I am only speaking for myself but I cant see this thread ever being a light hearted discussion and think this and other threads down this line should be moved to off topic forum and not be posted on the front page of a brewing forum.
> We seem to be discussing more social issues than brewing these days .
> My 2c
> Nev



I'm with Nev. 
As a Pastafarian Minister the only one of my religious beliefs I try to force down the throats of the willing is 'drink more beer'. Otherwise to other religious tenets I'd say 'I rather you didnt'


----------



## manticle (31/8/14)

Any racism or generalised bigotry won't be welcome. Should be adult enough to discuss topics like this without reverting to that, hopefully.


----------



## philmud (31/8/14)

Online Brewing Supplies said:


> I am only speaking for myself but I cant see this thread ever being a light hearted discussion and think this and other threads down this line should be moved to off topic forum and not be posted on the front page of a brewing forum.
> We seem to be discussing more social issues than brewing these days .
> My 2c
> Nev


Nev, it's in the "In the News" section. This is in the news. If mods want to move it, I'm fine with that, but I can't see any reason this can't be discussed. As with anything, members are free not to discuss.

Edit: I may have misunderstood. Do "off topic" threads not come up on the timeline feed? If so, I agree - should be brewing/beer related topics only on the front page.


----------



## philmud (31/8/14)

manticle said:


> Topic title should read 'Islamist State'.


The group refer to themselves as Islamic State, formerly Islamic State of Iraq & Syria. Perhaps "Islamist" might better capture that they're not representative of most Muslims.


----------



## manticle (31/8/14)

Yeah kind of what I was getting at. I edited that out anyway as you are correct and either term is open to misinterpretation.
Also it seems to have been moved so I edited the rest as my comments were totally redundant.


----------



## motch02 (31/8/14)

Interesting overview

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI[/media]


----------



## Feldon (31/8/14)

Here's a map of the situation on the ground in Iraq (from late June).

And another of Syria that is current (note that many of the "Syrian Rebels" marked are IS forces, particularly in the Golan).


----------



## Tahoose (31/8/14)

It is worrying but inevitably I think we will have troops on the ground again in Iraq. 

Lets hope this time they are actually allowed to do something, but the formation of task force black is a good start.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/sas-special-forces-forming-hunter-4097083

Is this a good time to bring up that it was the 'Kevin 07' election promise that saw us pull out of Iraq early in the first place. 

Good work Kev.


----------



## Toper (31/8/14)

i-a-n said:


> I'm with Nev.
> As a Pastafarian Minister the only one of my religious beliefs I try to force down the throats of the willing is 'drink more beer'. Otherwise to other religious tenets I'd say 'I rather you didnt'


As a fellow Pastafarian,I think you've forgotten about the bacon...never forget the bacon


----------



## i-a-n (31/8/14)

Prince Imperial said:


> The group refer to themselves as Islamic State, formerly Islamic State of Iraq & Syria. Perhaps "Islamist" might better capture that they're not representative of most Muslims.


Interesting video here.... 
http://ozziesaffa.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/i-bet-she-regrets-asking-her-question.html?m=1


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (31/8/14)

Islam has a lot of similarities to Christianity..

Being Islamic does not make you a terrorist, in the same way that being Catholic does not make you a pedophile...

There are extremists in all religions.

Ireland is a perfect example.

But being a Pastafarian does make you really cool, what with beer volcanoes, strippers and all... :chug:


----------



## Donske (31/8/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Islam has a lot of similarities to Christianity..
> 
> Being Islamic does not make you a terrorist, in the same way that being Catholic does not make you a pedophile...
> 
> ...


I really wish people would remember this, there are arseholes in every group, so many people in the western world assume that all Muslims are extremists, it really doesn't make sense that otherwise reasonable people come to that fallacious conclusion does my head in.

To be bigoted against individuals because they share some same of the beliefs as cold blooded murderers (let's call them what they are) is beyond baffling.

I like to point out to other atheists that some of worst atrocities ever committed were by communist regimes that were staunchly anti religion.


----------



## Phoney (31/8/14)

Tahoose said:


> Is this a good time to bring up that it was the 'Kevin 07' election promise that saw us pull out of Iraq early in the first place.
> 
> Good work Kev.


What, you think keeping the few thousand Aussie troops there would have made any difference? Australia's presence was nothing more than a token effort, kept away from the hotspots in the far south of the country. Which is why Australia had no casualties there (besides one soldier who killed himself). You could argue that the US withdrawal may have had some effect on the spread of IS through Northern Iraq, but there's too many other factors at play to even pin it down on that.

Essentially the US, and it's few allies created the monumental fuckup of the century by going into Iraq and having no effective plan for post-Saddam Iraq. As Peter Hartcher noted yesterday:




> Australia is now deeply immersed in discussions with the US over the next shared mission in Iraq. The last one was a profound misjudgment. George W. Bush was aided and abetted by his British and Australian allies in invading a stable country and leaving it an unstable one. Indeed, Iraq became one of the biggest sources of instability in the world.
> The invasion unseated Saddam Hussein, who operated a brutal regime but a stable country. It enthroned Nouri Al-Maliki, who operated a brutal regime and a deeply unstable country. It was American-occupied Iraq that incubated the movement now known as ISIS or Islamic State. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi formed Al Qaeda in Iraq, which became Islamic State. The group moved into Syria.
> Maliki spent years conducting a low-intensity civil war against the country's Sunnis. So when Sunni-based Islamic State fighters swept back from Syria into Iraq, the Sunnis in Iraq's army were not about to fight them. The Sunnis in the ranks quietly walked away. Four divisions in Iraq's army simply collapsed.
> Islamic State took over.
> The US under Obama and Australia under Abbott now confront the task of trying to cauterise the flow of bloodlust and bloodshed bequeathed them by their predecessors. They need to emphasise politics over kinetics and a regional solution rather than an Anglophone invasion.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-abbott-cannot-escape-joe-hockeys-budget-20140829-10a4nt.html#ixzz3BxxChi8w


----------



## Tahoose (31/8/14)

Phoney said:


> What, you think keeping the few thousand Aussie troops there would have made any difference? Australia's presence was nothing more than a token effort, kept away from the hotspots in the far south of the country. Which is why Australia had no casualties there (besides one soldier who killed himself). You could argue that the US withdrawal may have had some effect on the spread of IS through Northern Iraq, but there's too many other factors at play to even pin it down on that.


Not necessarily, but if we take our 3,000 and then the yanks shift 100,000 into Afghanistan, and the Brits withdraw their 15,000 all in succession. Then it certainly creates more instability in the country. I'm just plucking those numbers out of nowhere but I'm sure you get my drift.

We did have casualties though, but not fatality's..


----------



## manticle (31/8/14)

Could be well argued that foreign involvement throughout history has created a good portion of that instability.


----------



## philmud (1/9/14)

That's the conundrum for me. I think the 2003 invasion created the conditions for much of Iraq's instability & lead to horrendous sectarian violence. Is the answer to walk away, or does the West need to take responsibility by remaining involved. 
It's a moot point in some respects because Australia has announced involvement by way of delivering weapons to Kurdish fighters. I doubt IS see this as less antagonistic as more direct involvement.


----------



## Dave70 (1/9/14)

IS see their role as ushering in a new calaphae, albeit somewhat self appointed, in accordance with Surah Al-Nur, Verse 5.(among others) Its a proud tradition within islam. IS are simply doing what all religions have engaged in throughout history. They're taking the words of their relevant texts seriously. In this case, the koran. 
Supposing that western intervention and misadventures in the middle east are the root of the reigns woes and instability basically ignore muslim history dating from the 7th century and Muhammads conquest of the Arabian Peninsula. 
The rot and schisms that have brought nothing but war and misery to the region were set in motion a millennia before we hit the scene. 

An 'islamic state', that is, a sovereign state under sharia, is as wrongheaded and ludicrous as calling for a 'Jewish state', as in, Israel run strictly in accordance with Halakha, or the pope demanding Vatican city a "Catholic state'. 

Indecently, criticizing islam in no more racists or bigoted than criticizing any religion, or indeed a someones self imposed dietary habits. Its a belief system, not a ******* race. I somehow doubt if the Muhammad was of northern European extraction and the call to prayer was recited in Icelandic we'd feel the need to constantly couch the conversation racists disclaimers.


----------



## philmud (1/9/14)

No, you're correct, we wouldn't. Australian society has a bias towards any kind of predominantly white cultural phenomenon. Pointing out that Islam isn't an ethnicity is glib. Most Muslims belong to ethnicities that are routinely subject to racism. As you point out, if Muslims were white, there'd be no disclaimers. That's because a great deal of the criticism leveled at Islam has racist overtones.

Edit: that said, I agree. Islam shouldn't be off limits for criticism for fear of being labelled racist.


----------



## Dave70 (1/9/14)

Prince Imperial said:


> No, you're correct, we wouldn't. Australian society has a bias towards any kind of predominantly white cultural phenomenon. Pointing out that Islam isn't an ethnicity is glib. *Most Muslims belong to ethnicities that are routinely subject to racism.* As you point out, if Muslims were white, there'd be no disclaimers. That's because a great deal of the criticism leveled at Islam has racist overtones.
> 
> Edit: that said, I agree. Islam shouldn't be off limits for criticism for fear of being labelled racist.


You may have a point in reference to north African, in specific, Nigerian muslims, but the majority are Indonesian, Indian or Pakistani. 'Arab', and lets face it, thats the elephant in the room, states account for less than 20% of the worlds muslims. Devout muslims always recite (pray) from the koran in Arabic, regardless or their mother tongue. Them's the rules. Until we can get over this islam = Arab non sequedor, the conversation will remain stifled.


----------



## manticle (1/9/14)

Bigotry comes in forms other than racism though Dave. I believe any and all religions should be open to informed critique but much of what is bandied about is scaremongering based on ignorance. Nothing to do with race although as PI points out, xenophobic overtones are pretty widespread.

I'd like nothing better than more of the kind of open, critical discussion you get from people like Dawkins and less of the pig-ignorant stupidity you get from people like Stephanie Rice. Unfortunately the first is less common.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (1/9/14)

Unfortunately there is nothing we can do as westerners as abhorrent and disgusting as we may find it the situation has to be overcome by the Muslims. We can be going backwards and forwards to Iraq until the cows come home and never resolve a single issue.


----------



## Dave70 (1/9/14)

I agree we need to choose our words carefully, but this shit cuts both ways. 
You needn't dig to deep to find most religions are interchangeably a culture, a race, a business (charity) ect depending on what level they've chosen to be offended on or which tax exemption / grant they're applying for. 
Sound cynical? I've got a few customers who are Exclusive Brethren. In their case at least, no dummies when it comes to working the system. Good payers to I might ad. 

Unfortunately, no rational argument exists where one side ignores rational argument and reverts inevitably to special pleading.


----------



## philmud (1/9/14)

Dave70 said:


> You may have a point in reference to north African, in specific, Nigerian muslims, but the majority are Indonesian, Indian or Pakistani. 'Arab', and lets face it, thats the elephant in the room, states account for less than 20% of the worlds muslims. Devout muslims always recite (pray) from the koran in Arabic, regardless or their mother tongue. Them's the rules. Until we can get over this islam = Arab non sequedor, the conversation will remain stifled.


You don't think Indonesians/Indians/Pakistanis/Arabs are subject to routine racism?


----------



## Dave70 (1/9/14)

Prince Imperial said:


> You don't think Indonesians/Indians/Pakistanis/Arabs are subject to routine racism?


Sure they do. Just like women suffer routine sexism, homosexuals suffer routine homophobia and Jews suffer routine antisemitism. It can be an ugly world at times. 
My point was more to do with the fact that people identify a particular race, in particular, middle eastern appearance, with islam, as if being born Arabic is to be born 'islamic', when the facts are they actually account for only a small minority of the worlds muslims.


----------



## manticle (1/9/14)

And a large portion of the Middle Eastern/Arab world adhere to other creeds.


----------



## Dave70 (1/9/14)

Oddly, when I think of Buddhists, Richard Gere springs to mind ahead of the Dali Lama. 
But never Tiger Woods.


----------



## pcmfisher (1/9/14)

What does the average run of the mill non-extremist Muslim think about the murderous extremists?

I would have thought they may be outraged. But no.

You know, the kind of outrage shown when a satirical cartoon of Muhammad appears in a newspaper.


----------



## philmud (1/9/14)

pcmfisher said:


> What does the average run of the mill non-extremist Muslim think about the murderous extremists?
> 
> I would have thought they may be outraged. But no.
> 
> You know, the kind of outrage shown when a satirical cartoon of Muhammad appears in a newspaper.


How do you know they're not outraged? Because the MSM doesn't cover it?


----------



## pk.sax (1/9/14)

I have a problem with their spread, conquer and convert philosophy. Their perceived superiority. It ranks up ahead of Christian missionaries trying to convert the world.

Thankfully, today's missionary is mostly meek and doesn't bring an AK47 to the argument.

Proof is in the pudding they say. There are hundreds and thousands of extremist groups belonging to every religion possible. Yet, those societies pull them in and moderate them. Not so with the Jihadi states, most of the crap going on today emanates from extremists in Islamic States that are encouraged and congratulated while the moderates in those societies pay lip service to protest. Truthfully, Islam looks to me like the Borgs from Star Trek, they assimilate or kill.

Discuss...


----------



## manticle (1/9/14)

Proof of the pudding is in the eating. There is no proof in the pudding itself.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (1/9/14)

Lets not forget the those good folk from various Christian faiths who's duty it was to convert those lesser societies....


----------



## philmud (1/9/14)

Absolutely Stu, Christians colonized a huge proportion of the world. This almost always involved some degree of cultural erasure & in many instances, genocide. The ball is round and the game is long and we're only watching a very small part of it.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (1/9/14)

Prince Imperial said:


> Absolutely Stu, Christians colonized a huge proportion of the world. This almost always involved some degree of cultural erasure & in many instances, genocide. The ball is round and the game is long and we're only watching a very small part of it.


And lets also not forget the way that the Church was tied in with Governments of the day.

I give you Rabbit Proof Fence as a classic example


----------



## Blind Dog (1/9/14)

Not trying to trivialize what going on in Iraq and Syria, but as I understand it the fundamental difference between Sunni Muslims and Shia stems from the death of Mohammed and who was his rightful air. 1400 years later and the major target of IS and other Wahhabi extremists appears to be Shia Muslims. And the main target of Shia extremists appears to be Sunni Muslims.

I just don't get the concept of 'you believe something different from me therefore I have the right to kill you'. Any ideology that demands adherence without question is a ripe breeding ground for that level of hatred, whether it happens or not. Religions of whatever hue just seem to be more prevalent and easier to identify, but the same seemingly unquestioning allegiance to the motherland seems to be fueling the violence in the Ukraine, and the Balkans conflicts of recent memory seemed to turn on people's ethnicity rather than anything else. Massacres in Rwanda, the genocide of the aborigines, slavery all stem from that same unthinking, unfeeling belief that somehow what I'm doing is right and sanctioned by god (or substitute). The list of our hatred of our fellow humans, our violence and bloodshed is almost endless. IS and it's ilk are another manifestation. I fear they won't be the last.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (1/9/14)

Maybe its got to do with some one just not liking those that live next door...


----------



## manticle (1/9/14)

Well some seventh day adventists believe the Pope is the beast666. Islam and judaism (and christianity) are very closely linked in terms of early origin and development yet they love slandering and slaughtering each other.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (1/9/14)

Well, you can have that.....I have beer volcanoes & strippers in my religion


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (1/9/14)

And if you dont think that beer & strippers can lead to a religious experience, then I suggest you put that book of fables down and come to the pub..


----------



## pcmfisher (2/9/14)

Prince Imperial said:


> How do you know they're not outraged? Because the MSM doesn't cover it?


You think they are?

Can you point me towards any non MSM sources that say they are?
I ain't never seen it.


----------



## philmud (2/9/14)

pcmfisher said:


> You think they are?
> 
> Can you point me towards any non MSM sources that say they are?
> I ain't never seen it.


There have been protests in Norway (has a significant radical Islamic presence) and Detroit and Islamic leaders in the UK have issued a fatwa against IS leaders and fighters. Perhaps not the effigy burning protests you think they should be staging, but guess what? The vast majority of the world's Muslims didn't participate in those following the Danish cartoons either. My point is that we are presented with these situations through a not-impartial lens and it's dangerous to think that the media present enough information to enable a balanced, dispassionate perspective. 
The other important aspect to this is that your average, moderate Muslim probably doesn't feel the need to differentiate themselves from IS any more than you feel the need to distance yourself from David Koresh. It's a fringe group of crazies.


----------



## pcmfisher (2/9/14)

Prince Imperial said:


> There have been protests in Norway (has a significant radical Islamic presence) and Detroit and Islamic leaders in the UK have issued a fatwa against IS leaders and fighters. Perhaps not the effigy burning protests you think they should be staging, but guess what? The vast majority of the world's Muslims didn't participate in those following the Danish cartoons either. My point is that we are presented with these situations through a not-impartial lens and it's dangerous to think that the media present enough information to enable a balanced, dispassionate perspective.
> The other important aspect to this is that your average, moderate Muslim probably doesn't feel the need to differentiate themselves from IS any more than you feel the need to distance yourself from David Koresh. It's a fringe group of crazies.


Moderate Muslims don't feel the need to differentiate themselves from IS because they are sympathetic to their cause.


----------



## manticle (2/9/14)

Massive, blanket assumption there pcm.


----------



## philmud (2/9/14)

pcmfisher said:


> Moderate Muslims don't feel the need to differentiate themselves from IS because they are sympathetic to their cause.


So you, as a westerner feel no need to differentiate yourself from David Koresh, or the Westboro Baptist Church because you're sympathetic to their causes? The logic's the same.


----------



## Blind Dog (2/9/14)

pcmfisher said:


> Moderate Muslims don't feel the need to differentiate themselves from IS because they are sympathetic to their cause.


What utter rubbish.

Only Sunni Muslims following the strict Wahhabi sect could possibly have any sympathy with IS as everyone else has been declared apostate. Their main victims have been Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims who won't join them. I doubt anyone has sympathy for an organisation who's stated aim is your own eradication


----------



## manticle (2/9/14)

Could even try googling 'muslim condemnation terrorism' or 'muslim condemnation isis' to see you are incorrect, pcm.


----------



## Dave70 (2/9/14)

I'd concede moderate _anything _is preferable to radical or extremist, but it still like saying, we'll I'm only a _bit_ delusional, but those guys are _totally_ delusional. 
Problem is, the _totally_ delusional guys believe they are also the most _devout._ And when the most _devout_ are also the most violent, irrational sociopaths you could imagine, it takes more than lip service to bring about a change.
I can't understand why people seem to get so hung up on muslim leaders 'condemning' terrorism. What else _would_ they say? IS certainly don't give a **** what anybody says. As has been noted, they'll cut the throat of a muslim just as soon as they will a US journalist.


----------



## Airgead (2/9/14)

pcmfisher said:


> I ain't never seen it.


Ain't never seen it cos you ain't never looked...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=muslim+condemnation+terrorism


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (2/9/14)

I am a devout brewer...does that make me dangerous... h34r:


----------



## Dave70 (2/9/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I am a devout brewer...does that make me dangerous... h34r:


Only if you brew imaginary beer with imaginary equipment. 
Or brew CUB clones exclusively.


----------



## pcmfisher (2/9/14)

Prince Imperial said:


> So you, as a westerner feel no need to differentiate yourself from David Koresh, or the Westboro Baptist Church because you're sympathetic to their causes? The logic's the same.


What's being a westerner got to do with Koresh or Westboro?

I don't know about you, but if everyone was heaping shit on me as a Christian because Westbro is Christian mob (like the kind of shit heaped onto the Muslims because of their extremists) I like to think that me and every other "true" Christian would have something to say about it. Why wouldn't we feel the need?
Maybe there are not enough "true" Muslims.

Lucky I am not a Christian, hey.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (2/9/14)

As has been noted, they'll cut the throat of a muslim just as soon as they will a US journalist. 
As it is Muslims that are getting slaughtered all the more reason for Muslims to sort out IS, Turkey is on the border of Syria and Iraq
with very capable armed forces and also in the sights of IS.
Whatever a Western Allegiance does there would be no thank you very much, just condemnation for getting involved.


----------



## manticle (2/9/14)

> I don't know about you, but if everyone was heaping shit on me as a Christian because Westbro is Christian mob (like the kind of shit heaped onto the Muslims because of their extremists) I like to think that me and every other "true" Christian would have something to say about it. Why wouldn't we feel the need?
> Maybe there are not enough "true" Muslims.
> 
> Lucky I am not a Christian, hey.


Except as has been pointed out, many do have something to say about it. Stop playing that tune because the notes are wrong.


----------



## philmud (2/9/14)

pcmfisher said:


> What's being a westerner got to do with Koresh or Westboro?


A similar amount to being Muslim and Islamic State.

You're not considering this outside of what your lived experience tells you. You probably feel as though the distinction between being Western and being Christian is obvious and important. Its likely that you think the assumption that a Westerner would necessarily be sympathetic to Westboro Baptist Church is illogical. 

To the average Muslim living in Indonesia, this distinction is less clear. They know that the society you live in is rooted in Christian values and customs. To them, you're Christian. 

They probably also think the distinction between Islam and IS is pretty obvious and important too, and therefore see no need to gather en masse to make sure that some Aussie home-brewer knows they don't want to cut the heads off everyone with a different belief system.


----------



## goomboogo (2/9/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I am a devout brewer...does that make me dangerous... h34r:


It depends. Do you no-chill? Botulism is dangerous.


----------



## pk.sax (2/9/14)

Let's start sending fresh wort kits to Islamic countries.

Someone at work today suggested sending some Ebola people to the Taliban. Just reflecting on the futility of trying to influence humanity with good intentions.


----------



## philmud (2/9/14)

Actually PCM, this is pretty strong (NSFW).

http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/25/powerful-egyptian-feminists-literally-sh


----------



## i-a-n (2/9/14)

pcmfisher said:


> Moderate Muslims don't feel the need to differentiate themselves from IS because they are sympathetic to their cause.



They're all busy with their other hobbies. 

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28962144


----------



## Blind Dog (2/9/14)

i-a-n said:


> They're all busy with their other hobbies. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28962144


You're seriously trying to equate criminal gangs in the UK who are of Pakistani origin with Muslims? So all white criminal gangs you equate with Christians?


----------



## jimi (2/9/14)

manticle said:


> I'd like nothing better than more of the kind of open, critical discussion you get from people like Dawkins and less of the pig-ignorant stupidity you get from people like Stephanie Rice. Unfortunately the first is less common.


You get critical discussion from Dawkins, not much 'openness' though  The God delusion was a good read, but his bias is a bit too blinding. Fundamentalist, both of the atheist and theist variety are starting to look very similar. Both will claim to possess absolute knowledge and truth, with little interest or knowledge of the complexity of truth. Both are aggressive and abrasive at best. And both seem to have forgotten the purpose of dialogue. Religions /cults of any kind, aren't going to be reformed from outside sledging and attacks, surely the middle east has taught us that much! 
What do people think of Atheism 2.0?
http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0?language=en


----------



## manticle (2/9/14)

Not just criminal but organised paedophilia. Hard to begin to say how wrong that is Ian.


----------



## manticle (2/9/14)

jimi said:


> You get critical discussion from Dawkins, not much 'openness' though  The God delusion was a good read, but his bias is a bit too blinding. Fundamentalist, both of the atheist and theist variety are starting to look very similar. Both will claim to possess absolute knowledge and truth, with little interest or knowledge of the complexity of truth. Both are aggressive and abrasive at best. And both seem to have forgotten the purpose of dialogue. Religions /cults of any kind, aren't going to be reformed from outside sledging and attacks, surely the middle east has taught us that much!
> What do people think of Atheism 2.0?
> http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0?language=en


This is true and the main issue I've had with Dawkins from the get go, despite sharing his lack of belief.
However I mentioned him because his discourse involves research and knowledge, distinguishing critique from bigotry based on ignorance.
His attitude can appear arrogant but at least he knows what he is attacking, unlike the other example I gave.


----------



## Blind Dog (2/9/14)

jimi said:


> What do people think of Atheism 2.0?
> http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0?language=en


That it's bollocks. Quite happy with atheism 1.0. Never really understood de botton, always struck me as a pretentious (insert expletive of choice)


----------



## manticle (2/9/14)

People can incorporate ritual and spirituality into their life without believing in supernature or deities. Drawing, brewing, cooking and music making all have such aspects for me for example.
Not sure I need anyone's blessing or ideas on how to go about it but not having actually read Botton, I can't state outright that that's his schtick - just the impression I'm currently getting.


----------



## Blind Dog (2/9/14)

Botton's been around in the UK for a while. Gets wheeled out for intellectual debates on obscure TV shows on late at night. Blathers on a lot on odd notions such as happiness is linked to the architectural quality of the buildings that surround us. The sort of bloke who really would start every sentence at a party with 'well actually...'


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (2/9/14)

Well I have my protective head gear


----------



## i-a-n (3/9/14)

Blind Dog said:


> You're seriously trying to equate criminal gangs in the UK who are of Pakistani origin with Muslims? So all white criminal gangs you equate with Christians?



"unfortunately " I know that area, I know the no go areas, I've sat on a jury. 


Asian is being used as a euphemism. And other Asians do not like it. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18092605

Sorry. Can of worms, said too much, my apologies.


----------



## Blind Dog (3/9/14)

But you're still quite happy with your assertion that the rape and prostitution of underage girls is a 'hobby' for moderate Muslims?


----------



## philmud (3/9/14)

Yeah, Ian I think you're so far behind that you think you're first on this one. This case you refer to is awful, but I don't see how it even infers that pedophile crime gangs are endemic to Muslim culture. Even if it did, or they were, it bares no relevance to the topic, which is Islamic State. It just makes you appear Xenophobic.


----------



## Dave70 (3/9/14)

jimi said:


> You get critical discussion from Dawkins, not much 'openness' though  The God delusion was a good read, but his bias is a bit too blinding. Fundamentalist, both of the atheist and theist variety are starting to look very similar. Both will claim to possess absolute knowledge and truth, with little interest or knowledge of the complexity of truth. Both are aggressive and abrasive at best. And both seem to have forgotten the purpose of dialogue. Religions /cults of any kind, aren't going to be reformed from outside sledging and attacks, surely the middle east has taught us that much!
> What do people think of Atheism 2.0?
> http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0?language=en


Not so.

Dawkins for example, for all his brilliance, isn't the most articulate orator and frequently seems to be getting outpointed by some crafty theist with the gift of the gab. Because he cant deliver biological science and evolution like a Hillsong car salesman counts for little in reality. It's a tough sell when one side is promising immortality or virgins. No anti-theist who respects data, evidence, reason and truth would lay claim to 'absolute knowledge', that claim is demonstrably the purview or theists or idiots. Equally, no respected atheist commentator or critic of religion anchors their argument to ad hominem, they don't need to. 

What has the middle east taught us? I personally take away that a mix of tribalism and dogmatic theism seems to produce the most unhappiness for all concerned. Ironic that. You'd think society's who enjoy an exclusive covenant with god would be bliss filled utopias, instead they seem to be rubble strewn slaughter houses. 

Also 'What people think' is irrelevant. It's entirely possible for the consensus to be mistaken. 
**** you Galileo, the sun orbits the _earth_..


----------



## Dave70 (3/9/14)

Just to pick at this scab further, while its fair to say the more radical elements of islam are not representative of the faith as a whole, I cannot think of a single example, individual or group, who has be excommunicated by islamic leaders. Not even the likes of murderous thugs Boko Haram or that big mouthed benefit scrounging embarrassment Anjem Choudary. You would imagine an organisation with such a public image problem would be bending over backwards to sever all ties with these generators of bad publicity.

At least the catholic church had the decency to excommunicate nazis. OK, only Joseph Goebbles. And not for war crimes. For having the audacity to marry a protestant.


----------



## philmud (3/9/14)

The Catholic Church has a central hierarchy, Islam doesn't. There is strong condemnation though:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2014/08/muslim-leaders-join-in-condemnation-of-isis/


----------



## Dave70 (3/9/14)

Look up Takfir. You can indeed be excommunicated for not following islamic law. Tends to be enforced by extremist groups to justify punishing apostasy, but could equally be applied to 'un islamic' activity. 
A mufti can issue a fatwa, no central hierarchy required.


----------



## Airgead (3/9/14)

Dave70 said:


> A mufti can issue a fatwa, no central hierarchy required.


And indeed such fatwas have been issued - http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/31/british-muslim-leaders-fatwa-jihadists-islamic-state-isis

But because there is no central hierarchy, they tend to get ignored by those outside the issuing group.

Oh yeah... and because they aren't considered as newsworthy as beheadings they get ignored by non muslims as well who then go on to complain that moderate muslims aren't issuing fatwas against radicals. But if you go looking it doesn't take much effort to find them - http://bit.ly/1vL1mQH


----------



## Dave70 (3/9/14)

You really love wheeling out that Google search thingie, don't you fellah..

Again, there's fatwas, and there's fatwas. Like the kind of easily circumvented verbal prohibitions we see there, and the kind issued to Salman Rushdie. 
25 years on, those clerics sure know how to hold a grudge. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560683/Iranian-mullah-revives-death-fatwa-against-Salman-Rushdie-Satanic-Verses-25-years-issued.html


----------



## Blind Dog (3/9/14)

Dave70 said:


> Just to pick at this scab further, while its fair to say the more radical elements of islam are not representative of the faith as a whole, I cannot think of a single example, individual or group, who has be excommunicated by islamic leaders.


I don't think you're picking at a scab, rather asking a reasonable question. But the reality is that it would be like asking the Anglican Church to excommunicate one of the more extreme baptist churches in the US. Islam is not a single homogenous whole. As with any religion there have been schisms, reform and counter reform movements such that it is splintered into a myriad of conflicting theologies.


----------



## pcmfisher (3/9/14)

manticle said:


> People can incorporate ritual and spirituality into their life without believing in supernature or deities. Drawing, brewing, cooking and music making all have such aspects for me for example.
> Not sure I need anyone's blessing or ideas on how to go about it but not having actually read Botton, I can't state outright that that's his schtick - just the impression I'm currently getting.


I don't understand spirituality and its non link to the supernatural.

Can you point me to the part of spirituality that manifests in reality?


----------



## manticle (3/9/14)

No.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (3/9/14)

It's more about the vibe, man.


----------



## Dave70 (3/9/14)

pcmfisher said:


> I don't understand spirituality and its non link to the supernatural.
> 
> Can you point me to the part of spirituality that manifests in reality?


Yes. 

http://www.samharris.org/waking-up


----------



## Airgead (3/9/14)

Dave70 said:


> You really love wheeling out that Google search thingie, don't you fellah..


I do indeed... if only to indicate that it doesn't take very much effort at all to look beyond whatever the telegraph is reporting today and get a more balanced picture.


----------



## pcmfisher (3/9/14)

Dave70 said:


> Yes.
> 
> http://www.samharris.org/waking-up


Looks interesting. Might buy it.

Have you read it?


----------



## Dave70 (3/9/14)

pcmfisher said:


> Looks interesting. Might buy it.
> 
> Have you read it?


Not yet, but soon. You can listen to the first chapter here. 

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/chapter-one


----------



## Eagleburger (3/9/14)

Is it just me or has the islamists been getting a lot of bad press the last 15 years?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (3/9/14)

Only the Murdoch press


----------



## jimi (3/9/14)

Dave70 said:


> Not yet, but soon. You can listen to the first chapter here.
> 
> http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/chapter-one


Paul Blooms review from that link; "Sam Harris—one of the great skeptics of our time—shows how spiritual traditions provide important truths that have largely been missed by the scientific and secular communities." makes it sound a lot like De Botton's 2.0
It's refreshing to hear someone acknowledge the strengths of another side in order to progress the discussion and move to a more rational ground, rather than the all to common apparent yelling of the team line over and over. Which I suppose is yet another common element the theist and athesit fundamenalists share


----------



## jimi (3/9/14)

Dave70 said:


> Not so.
> 
> Dawkins for example, for all his brilliance, isn't the most articulate orator and frequently seems to be getting outpointed by some crafty theist with the gift of the gab. Because he cant deliver biological science and evolution like a Hillsong car salesman counts for little in reality. It's a tough sell when one side is promising immortality or virgins. No anti-theist who respects data, evidence, reason and truth would lay claim to 'absolute knowledge', that claim is demonstrably the purview or theists or idiots. Equally, no respected atheist commentator or critic of religion anchors their argument to ad hominem, they don't need to.


If Dawkins is getting outpointed it might be becuase he relies on evolution to be his trump card and if he doesn't encounter a literalist / fundamentalist perspective he is lost. The all too long debate between religion and aethism ended long ago in a nil all draw (IMO) because there is simply is no way of proving or disproving something that is (or at least claimed to be) transcendent. Science will observe and measure the observable, that doesn't help when the topic is an abstract entity that can't be measured or observed. The only productive ground for the debate is a honest philosophial discussion that can identify both the strengths and weakness of both practises, but I fear the the loudest noises are those coming from the respective fundamentalists, or may be that's just the popular media presentation.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (3/9/14)

As the devil once said " My greatest achievement has been to convince everyone that I dont exist"


----------



## Blind Dog (3/9/14)

Or would have said if he existed


----------



## Camo6 (3/9/14)

When did he say that? I skimmed through most of the New Testament. Love this guy, forgive that guy. Old Testament was much more exciting. Why do they always go back for the sequel?


----------



## Blind Dog (3/9/14)

jimi said:


> If Dawkins is getting outpointed it might be becuase he relies on evolution to be his trump card and if he doesn't encounter a literalist / fundamentalist perspective he is lost. The all too long debate between religion and aethism ended long ago in a nil all draw (IMO) because there is simply is no way of proving or disproving something that is (or at least claimed to be) transcendent. Science will observe and measure the observable, that doesn't help when the topic is an abstract entity that can't be measured or observed. The only productive ground for the debate is a honest philosophial discussion that can identify both the strengths and weakness of both practises, but I fear the the loudest noises are those coming from the respective fundamentalists, or may be that's just the popular media presentation.


There has never been a debate, because you can't debate whether a figment of your imagination is indeed a figment of your imagination or real. A devout (insert religion/crack pot cult of choice) can no more prove the existence of their deity or deities than I can prove that I have a Brussels sprout called Dave as my guardian angel who speaks to me in Swahili (which by the way is a bugger cos my Swahili is rudimentary to say the least). But they will always resort to the 'you can't prove God/Allah/Jehovah/Dave don't exist therefore they must exist' argument. If you think that's a debate that ended nil all I suggest you look up the word debate.

I neither want to nor have to prove your (that's a generic your not a personal attack) god does or doesn't exist. Even if you (again generic not personal) could prove the existence of any god I've come across I'd still be an atheist, because they are all without exception petty minded, schizophrenic, misogynistic, egotistical, cowardly, antagonistic bullies.


----------



## Blind Dog (3/9/14)

Camo6 said:


> When did he say that? I skimmed through most of the New Testament. Love this guy, forgive that guy. Old Testament was much more exciting. Why do they always go back for the sequel?


It's a paraphrase of Kevin Spacey's character in the Usual Suspects, which in turn is a mildly altered quote from a French poet. It is routinely spouted by Christian fundamentalists, and recently by both the pope and DBS. There is no evidence El Diablo actually said it at all


----------



## manticle (3/9/14)

Blind Dog said:


> There has never been a debate, because you can't debate whether a figment of your imagination is indeed a figment of your imagination or real. A devout (insert religion/crack pot cult of choice) can no more prove the existence of their deity or deities than I can prove that I have a Brussels sprout called Dave as my guardian angel who speaks to me in Swahili (which by the way is a bugger cos my Swahili is rudimentary to say the least). But they will always resort to the 'you can't prove God/Allah/Jehovah/Dave don't exist therefore they must exist' argument. If you think that's a debate that ended nil all I suggest you look up the word debate.
> I neither want to nor have to prove your (that's a generic your not a personal attack) god does or doesn't exist. Even if you (again generic not personal) could prove the existence of any god I've come across I'd still be an atheist, because they are all without exception petty minded, schizophrenic, misogynistic, egotistical, cowardly, antagonistic bullies.


Pretty much on par with my thoughts on all counts.
I'm not interested in proving or disproving anything nor justifying what is essentially a lack of belief and I haven't come across a deist representation I'd willingly worship even if someone could prove their reality.

And jimi - that's an amazingly narrow perspective on what science is. Science asks all the questions religion ever has and more - it just tries harder to provide the answers. Science would not have advanced as far as it has without incredible, engaged, creative and philosophical minds.


----------



## Camo6 (4/9/14)

Blind Dog said:


> It's a paraphrase of Kevin Spacey's character in the Usual Suspects, which in turn is a mildly altered quote from a French poet. It is routinely spouted by Christian fundamentalists, and recently by both the pope and DBS. There is no evidence El Diablo actually said it at all


Cheers, was being a little tongue in cheek. First penned in 1874 by Charles Baudelair in the short story the Generous Gambler (so states that eminent sage Googlu) but yeah I prefer the Keyser Soze version better. And though I've attempted to have a go reading the Good Book, my cynicism usually stops me after a couple of pages.


----------



## Dave70 (4/9/14)

jimi said:


> Paul Blooms review from that link; "Sam Harris—one of the great skeptics of our time—shows how spiritual traditions provide important truths that have largely been missed by the scientific and secular communities." makes it sound a lot like De Botton's 2.0
> It's refreshing to hear someone acknowledge the strengths of another side in order to progress the discussion and move to a more rational ground, rather than the all to common apparent yelling of the team line over and over. Which I suppose is yet another common element the theist and athesit fundamenalists share


I somehow doubt followers of Abrahamic faiths will get much love in this book jimi.
Harris isn't trying to initiate a group hug between theists and non theists here. Contemplative thought and meditation are topics he's discussed in other books and it reflects the years he spent in Asia studying under Hindi and Buddhist teachers. The message (as I see it anyway) is these are experiences open to all people who wish to learn the techniques put in the work, no chanting or to praying to multi limbed elephant statues required. 




jimi said:


> If Dawkins is getting outpointed it might be becuase he relies on evolution to be his trump card and if he doesn't encounter a literalist / fundamentalist perspective he is lost. The all too long debate between religion and aethism ended long ago in a nil all draw (IMO) because there is simply is no way of proving or disproving something that is (or at least claimed to be) transcendent. Science will observe and measure the observable, that doesn't help when the topic is an abstract entity that can't be measured or observed. The only productive ground for the debate is a honest philosophial discussion that can identify both the strengths and weakness of both practises, but I fear the the loudest noises are those coming from the respective fundamentalists, or may be that's just the popular media presentation.


I agree, its a zero sum game, and so long as one side puts no value in empirical evidence, shall remain so. But just imagine, hypothetically, a generation or two ago kids in Afghanistan were made to realize, lets say via some atheist pamphlet drop into Kabul, that the koran was merely a cobbled together plagiarism of Jewish and Christian mythology, not the word of the prophet, or at the very least, nothing worth killing or dying for. Do you imagine we would be regretting winning that argument today? I think its an argument worth winning to be honest. 

You also seem to keep representing atheism as a belief. It isn't, any more than not believing in the existence of leprechauns or fairy's merits its own title. We're not talking two sides of the same coin here.


----------



## pk.sax (4/9/14)

Damn fairies. Root of all evil.


----------



## jimi (4/9/14)

Blind Dog said:


> There has never been a debate, because you can't debate whether a figment of your imagination is indeed a figment of your imagination or real. A devout (insert religion/crack pot cult of choice) can no more prove the existence of their deity or deities than I can prove that I have a Brussels sprout called Dave as my guardian angel who speaks to me in Swahili (which by the way is a bugger cos my Swahili is rudimentary to say the least). But they will always resort to the 'you can't prove God/Allah/Jehovah/Dave don't exist therefore they must exist' argument. If you think that's a debate that ended nil all I suggest you look up the word debate.
> 
> I neither want to nor have to prove your (that's a generic your not a personal attack) god does or doesn't exist. Even if you (again generic not personal) could prove the existence of any god I've come across I'd still be an atheist, because they are all without exception petty minded, schizophrenic, misogynistic, egotistical, cowardly, antagonistic bullies.





Blind Dog said:


> There has never been a debate, because you can't debate whether a figment of your imagination is indeed a figment of your imagination or real. A devout (insert religion/crack pot cult of choice) can no more prove the existence of their deity or deities than I can prove that I have a Brussels sprout called Dave as my guardian angel who speaks to me in Swahili (which by the way is a bugger cos my Swahili is rudimentary to say the least). But they will always resort to the 'you can't prove God/Allah/Jehovah/Dave don't exist therefore they must exist' argument. If you think that's a debate that ended nil all I suggest you look up the word debate.


A debate that can't be a debate is precisely my point (nil all draw). Both sides keep presenting what I assume they consider to be winning arguments, but these argument rarely meet because they coming from different concepts of truth. The fundamentalist atheist seem to assume that empirical and objective truth is all there can be while the religious fundamentalist seems to assume subjective and relative truth is all that matters when defining/relating to an intangible abstract deity.

Don't get me wrong, objective truth is vital for keeping religion from becoming superstition, but athetists are too often stuck in only this kind of thinking and therefore miss much of what is being said from a religious perspective. That's why I like De Botton's 2.0, philosophy and a break away from the tribal lines of the debate might actually provide something productive for all society. It doesn't seem popular though.

Your description of all the gods you've encountered is a perfect example also of the subjectivity of truth. It's easy to read something like the Hebrew scriptures and think this god they follow is violent and insecure, but its obviously not the truth the Jewish people hold to.


----------



## Phoney (4/9/14)

Dave70 said:


> . But just imagine, hypothetically, a generation or two ago kids in Afghanistan were made to realize, lets say via some atheist pamphlet drop into Kabul, that the koran was merely a cobbled together plagiarism of Jewish and Christian mythology, not the word of the prophet, or at the very least, nothing worth killing or dying for. Do you imagine we would be regretting winning that argument today? I think its an argument worth winning to be honest.


Actually that's kinda what did actually happen. In 1980, at the request of Afghan King Shah, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan no doubt with the eventual intention of imposing godless communism in that country. Then the US and Saudi Arabia came along and armed the opposing mujahideen (who later became the Taliban) with stinger missiles. In hindsight, looking at what became of the country when the Soviets withdrew 9 years later, and in comparison to how the other ex-soviet Stans to the north are doing today (that is relatively well), and that's not even taking into account 9/11, Bin Laden etc... then it's damnregrettable that the West helped "win" that conflict. But this is rather off topic.


----------



## jimi (4/9/14)

Dave70 said:


> You also seem to keep representing atheism as a belief. It isn't, any more than not believing in the existence of leprechauns or fairy's merits its own title. We're not talking two sides of the same coin here.


I assume you're referring to me using term the fundamentalism in respect to atheism(?) Certainly in this instance the title is not given because of nature (because atheism doesn't have fundamentals) but because of form. I've provided plenty examples of how atheism fundamentalism is so very similar in form to religious fundamentalism eg intolerance, absolutism, aggression, narrow / exclusive definitions of truth, etc etc


----------



## Liam_snorkel (4/9/14)

Phoney - It's rather on point actually and brings us back to the original thrust of the thread, which I've enjoyed reading for the most part. 

Jimi - the point is that faith is a choice to believe something despite knowing there isn't any evidence for it. There are no magical insights to be gained from religion that can't be achieved through rational thought & curiosity, in fact I think the opposite is true. By choosing faith over thought one closes off possibilities of understanding and wonder. I recommend reading Dawkins - Unweaving the Rainbow, which was written in response to misconceptions of science & atheism.


----------



## Blind Dog (4/9/14)

Jimi, I can't and won't speak for atheists in general as that would be far too presumptuous, but for myself 'truth' is never an absolute. For example, the existence or non-existence of a supernatural being or beings is probably unprovable, unless they care to cooperate and come out from hiding. As an atheist all I see is no evidence for their existence, nor any logical reason to suppose that they might exist any more than I can see any reason to suppose that there is a crock of gold at the end of the rainbow or that a cow can indeed jump over the moon.

Science does not present facts. It presents a theory and then sets out to disprove it, test it and refine it. Only maths has a concept of proof, and even there a mathematical proof is based on unprovable assumptions (one being that 2 parallel lines will never meet). To suggest that science or atheists purport to present a truth is to completely miss the point. Truth in science is a constantly evolving thing as more information comes to light, as theories are tested, revised or disproved, as knowledge is sought and gained. It is not mired in dogma (although the egos involved can make it seem that way at tines), but constantly questioning the status quo. Most atheists I've met are atheists for the same reason I am. However, if I'm wrong, then I'm simply wrong.

There is frustration at the number of times you get the 'but even scientists say evolution is a theory' comment and politely have to point out that gravity is also a theory and given we're not all floating off into space, probably quite a good one. And that 'theory' in science doesn't mean 'crazy, stupid idea dreamt up whilst drunk' like the 'theory' they came up with as to why they're still a virgin at 45. That can make me a tad grumpy


----------



## jimi (4/9/14)

Liam_snorkel said:


> Phoney - It's rather on point actually and brings us back to the original thrust of the thread, which I've enjoyed reading for the most part.
> 
> Jimi - the point is that faith is a choice to believe something despite knowing there isn't any evidence for it. There are no magical insights to be gained from religion that can't be achieved through rational thought & curiosity, in fact I think the opposite is true. By choosing faith over thought one closes off possibilities of understanding and wonder. I recommend reading Dawkins - Unweaving the Rainbow, which was written in response to misconceptions of science & atheism.


Science and religion shouldn't be seen as mutually exclusive (not that you said they were Liam). If science could kill any theology / belief it should!! I personally think that 'intelligent design' is an example of a certain fundamentalist theology moving further into its death throws. The problem with Dawkins isn't that he is against bad religion, everyone should be against bad religion, it's that he sees all religion as bad. I don't think religion has ever really been about gaining special insights and its certainly not been about gaining answers. I think its about 'responding' to fundamental human 'questions' about life in a way which provides meaning and purpose to peoples lives. Inteligent and open aethists like De Botton can see that as a system, it can do this quite well, even if they don't buy all the supernatural stuff. Obviously that's not to say people can't find meaning and purpose outside of religion, and respond to these questions in meaningful ways, obviously they do.
The modern and dangerous fundamentalism that we see today is actually a response to the moderates and progressive religious elements within the religious traditions. Fundamentalists hate the moderate / liberal / progressives. They hate their; openess, dialogue with externals, recognition of other truths, their general positions which in reflection bring into question the absolutes that they seem to desperately need to hold etc etc Blind sweeping attacks on all religions I expect will only make the challenge of addressing fundamentalism all the harder


----------



## Blind Dog (4/9/14)

jimi said:


> I assume you're referring to me using term the fundamentalism in respect to atheism(?) Certainly in this instance the title is not given because of nature (because atheism doesn't have fundamentals) but because of form. I've provided plenty examples of how atheism fundamentalism is so very similar in form to religious fundamentalism eg intolerance, absolutism, aggression, narrow / exclusive definitions of truth, etc etc


To be honest you haven't presented any examples. You've made unsupported statements of your opinion, which is fine but not quite the same thing. I'm sure there are examples of atheists being just as dogmatic, callous and barbaric as religious fundamentalists. Stalin is the usual example that gets trotted out (or maybe Trotskyed out), but there will be others.


----------



## Blind Dog (4/9/14)

jimi said:


> Science and religion shouldn't be seen as mutually exclusive (not that you said they were Liam). If science could kill any theology / belief it should!! I personally think that 'intelligent design' is an example of a certain fundamentalist theology moving further into its death throws. The problem with Dawkins isn't that he is against bad religion, everyone should be against bad religion, it's that he sees all religion as bad. I don't think religion has ever really been about gaining special insights and its certainly not been about gaining answers. I think its about 'responding' to fundamental human 'questions' about life in a way which provides meaning and purpose to peoples lives. Inteligent and open aethists like De Botton can see that as a system, it can do this quite well, even if they don't buy all the supernatural stuff. Obviously that's not to say people can't find meaning and purpose outside of religion, and respond to these questions in meaningful ways, obviously they do.
> The modern and dangerous fundamentalism that we see today is actually a response to the moderates and progressive religious elements within the religious traditions. Fundamentalists hate the moderate / liberal / progressives. They hate their; openess, dialogue with externals, recognition of other truths, their general positions which in reflection bring into question the absolutes that they seem to desperately need to hold etc etc Blind sweeping attacks on all religions I expect will only make the challenge of addressing fundamentalism all the harder


OK then I'll say it.science and religion are mutually exclusive.

One is based on a search for knowledge, one based on superstition and fear. What you call fundamental questions (presumably why am I here, what's the purpose of my existence, what happens when I die, etc), I call abstractions. The more time I spend contemplating the unknowable, the less I.can spend understanding the knowable. To accept that in all probability life exists as a result of a billion to one chance combination of chemicals, that life has one purpose and one purplish only and that is survival, and that death us just that is incredibly liberating. It doesn't mute life's experiences but makes them more acute, more vivid, every moment is precious and every interaction full of possibility. If that's not the core of what is called 'spirituality', I don't know what is.

So for me atheism 0.9 is just fine.


----------



## jimi (4/9/14)

Blind Dog said:


> Truth in science is a constantly evolving thing as more information comes to light, as theories are tested, revised or disproved, as knowledge is sought and gained. It is not mired in dogma (although the egos involved can make it seem that way at tines), but constantly questioning the status quo. Most atheists I've met are atheists for the same reason I am. However, if I'm wrong, then I'm simply wrong.


Truth in 'everything' is a constantly evolving thing! As we evolve and develop our understanding so to does our truth. Could not agree with you more. And you would think that we should allow this to happen in all fields of study and learning. But I wonder whether theology gets allowed the same right to evolve?


----------



## Blind Dog (4/9/14)

I don't know why I always feel the need to caveat stuff, but guess whilst forums are great, as the exchanges are written much of the nuance and expression of face to face dialogue is lost.

Anyway, my last few posts could be read as belligerent or aimed at Jimi personally. They are not intended to be, merely to continue what has become a fairly robust debate and discussion. No offence or disrespect is implied or intended


----------



## Blind Dog (5/9/14)

jimi said:


> Truth in 'everything' is a constantly evolving thing! As we evolve and develop our understanding so to does our truth. Could not agree with you more. And you would think that we should allow this to happen in all fields of study and learning. But I wonder whether theology gets allowed the same right to evolve?


I wish it were true. The problem with any dogmatic ideology whether it be religion, communism, racism et al is that it decides what truth is and will always be.

Theology is a bastard child. As an atheist I find it no more appropriate to study the concept of god as I do the study of the concept of the Loch Ness monster. Why look to the divine / supernatural to try to explain the unexplainable? I don't know why I get such an intense joy every time my son gives me a hug, or every morning when I wake up next to my wife. But why does that imply that there must be something supernatural/divine etc? 

Now if theologians could explain why their god tells them to kill us and our god tells us to kill them and then explain how we can get them to stop, I might listen. But theology starts without any basis in fact, observable data, or testable hypotheses, requests that we suspend all critical analysis and then embarks on a journey of fiction. I'll happily allow it to evolve beyond the narrow confines it set for itself, but I doubtit wants to.


----------



## jimi (5/9/14)

Blind Dog said:


> OK then I'll say it.science and religion are mutually exclusive.
> 
> One is based on a search for knowledge, one based on superstition and fear. What you call fundamental questions (presumably why am I here, what's the purpose of my existence, what happens when I die, etc), I call abstractions. The more time I spend contemplating the unknowable, the less I.can spend understanding the knowable. To accept that in all probability life exists as a result of a billion to one chance combination of chemicals, that life has one purpose and one purplish only and that is survival, and that death us just that is incredibly liberating. It doesn't mute life's experiences but makes them more acute, more vivid, every moment is precious and every interaction full of possibility. If that's not the core of what is called 'spirituality', I don't know what is.
> 
> So for me atheism 0.9 is just fine.


OK this will be fun, lets be scientific about this and look for examples to support your claim. What science do you think is incompatible with a religious world view? evolution?, big bang? do your best
(I'll get back to you tomorrow it's too late)


----------



## manticle (5/9/14)

jimi said:


> Truth in 'everything' is a constantly evolving thing! As we evolve and develop our understanding so to does our truth. Could not agree with you more. And you would think that we should allow this to happen in all fields of study and learning. But I wonder whether theology gets allowed the same right to evolve?


What makes you think theology doesn't? It's an academic subject, a possible career choice and has a huge amount of historical and cultural support.
Don't cry foul for the way theology is treated mate- gets plenty of love about the place. Bit like the time a socialist mate of mine told me he felt a bit sorry for carlton draught cos it gets a hard time.

As for your other question about religious and scientific compatibility - it depends how literally you want to interpret various scripture but if you interpret any of it literally, most of it is incompatible. Earth creation stories, miracles, resurrections, rebirths, supernatural beings, cosmic justice systems, virgin births, demons, angels.

Got any religious principles from any known scripture that is scientifically valid or sound?


----------



## Airgead (5/9/14)

Blind Dog said:


> Only maths has a concept of proof, and even there a mathematical proof is based on unprovable assumptions (one being that 2 parallel lines will never meet).


 :icon_offtopic: Ahem....my pedantry will not let this pass without comment.

If you look at axiomatic set theory, you can actually prove many of the "unprovable" axioms in maths. It is, I will admit a somewhat controversial topic in maths but no one has yet come up with anything that kills it.

And the parallel lines proof is relatively easy provided you can prove that your underlying geometry is perfectly Euclidean... that's the hard bit.

There are {{},{{}}} types of people in the world. Those that understand axiomatic set theory and those that don't.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (5/9/14)

just a comment - Jimi is doing a good job of playing devil's advocate here (I assume) and everyone is keeping the conversation civil, pat on the back, everyone!

jimi - back to your comments RE Dawkins, I need to clarify something, he sees religion foremost as _obsolete_ and outdated by knowledge, and therefore "bad" as you put it. There are many functions that religions achieve (community gatherings & support, musical, "spiritual", some charity work) but _none_ of these are dependant on the existence of a supreme being. Now look at all the fucked things which have been achieved in the name of the creator..

that was the point I was trying to make.

also I really do recommend reading Unweaving the Rainbow, it's pre god delusion and probably a lot more palatable.


----------



## philmud (5/9/14)

Apropos of nothing anyone has written here, I think this little rant encapsulates why lots of non-theists have some reservations about identifying with atheism. I tried to read the God Delusion but the smug kept sticking the pages together. I say that as someone who finds most theistic belief systems highly improbable (though fairly unfamiliar with all bar Catholicism).


http://youtu.be/0ghIU_tlX0k


----------



## Airgead (5/9/14)

jimi said:


> OK this will be fun, lets be scientific about this and look for examples to support your claim. What science do you think is incompatible with a religious world view? evolution?, big bang? do your best
> (I'll get back to you tomorrow it's too late)


Ahhh.... that classic.

Problem with that is that the more you explain with science, the less a deity is required. The debate basically degenerates into "oh yeah... but who started the big bang then huh?" to which the answer is "random quantum fluctuations" which leads to "well who made the quantum fluctuations huh?".. and so on.

The whole argument is a fallacy and taken to its ultimate end, leads to a refutation of religion. Look up god of the gaps. 



> *God of the gaps* is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof ofGod's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase to refer to a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy.


But now we are drifting into philosophy...


----------



## jimi (5/9/14)

Airgead said:


> Ahhh.... that classic.
> 
> Problem with that is that the more you explain with science, the less a deity is required. The debate basically degenerates into "oh yeah... but who started the big bang then huh?" to which the answer is "random quantum fluctuations" which leads to "well who made the quantum fluctuations huh?".. and so on.
> 
> ...


Manticle - I wish I could get multi quote going on iPad because I'm addressing your point here too.

Philosophy is absolutely necessary in this discussion and I wish Lecterfan would join in so it wasn't just me trying to explain truth again. These fields are essentially two different ways looking at and responding to the world. Manticle - you didn't hear me cry foul before, just preempt the post here by airgead. The theology of 'the god of the gaps' is a long outdated model that could only be supported by fundamentalist, it's this framework which they used to build concepts like 'intelligent design'.  This discussion almost always hits a point when an atheist will make the assumption that this is the model for god used by religions , ie a 'superbeing' that does what we can't explain. That is why they are so confident that scientific discoveries which have essentially closed this gap in our knowledge has solved the debate as there is no longer a need for the existence of a god to explain this. The god of the gaps is probably the earliest and simplest theology; eg picture a cave man watching a volcanoes and making sense of it by referring to a god in the rocks or something, but it most certainly isn't a contemporary theology outside of fundamentalist circles. When you explain this often arms get flung into the air and the atheists claim that theists are moving the goals because they no longer have the straw man they had hoped they had. 
Youtube Robert Winston the story of god and you'll find a very appropriate BBC documentary by this acclaimed scientist who is also a devout Orthodox Jew. If memory serves me correctly one of the episodes is even called god of the gaps in which he has an interview with Dawkins and heads to CERN. Blind Dog - since I don't believe it is possible for you to find examples of science that is incompatible with a religious worldview (other than those of fundamentalists) I'll go first and provide you with this as an example of a number of scientists at the the forefront of biological and nuclear research that can reconcile their religious beliefs with science.


----------



## jimi (5/9/14)

As for your other question about religious and scientific compatibility - it depends how literally you want to interpret various scripture but if you interpret any of it literally, most of it is incompatible. Earth creation stories, miracles, resurrections, rebirths, supernatural beings, cosmic justice systems, virgin births, demons, angels.
Got any religious principles from any known scripture that is scientifically valid or sound?[/quote]

I'm not obviously not doing a very good job of explaining the complexities of truth, so if someone else can draw Lecterfan or any other philosophy student into the joys of a theist v atheist debate be my guest ; )
Other than literal / fundamentalist, which I've offered no defence of, I'm not aware of any contemporary hermeneutics for any religion, that would suggest their sacred texts are in any way attempting to explain scientific truths. Remember my nil all draw reference , neither side is essentially playing on the same ground, they are not interested in the same things, although it is important that both are informed by each other. Remember my reference to how if science could kill any god it should!
Sacred texts, as the bondi Orthodox Jews used to tell me, are abstract stories to explain an abstract concept. They use myths, poems, songs, legends etc to explain their truths in relation to the human condition, relationships between people, the relationship between people and the natural world, the purpose of life and so on. The purpose of religion is not to explain the world but how to give meaning to life. Again, that's not to say meaning can't be sought in other ways, but it also doesn't deny that religion is for many people an effective means finding meaning.


----------



## manticle (5/9/14)

Fair points, especially the last paragraph. I too would like to hear Lecter's thoughts (I'd like to share some more late night saisons with the bearded cowboy* and talk all things philospohical at some point again)

*I'm aware that sounds slightly wrong.

I guess essentially my take is that if people derive meaning from these stories (which is essentially what they are) then I'm not remotely interested in removing that meaning from their lives. I don't derive much meaning from them myself and when/if anyone attempts to insist that I do (culturally, politically, etc) then I resist. Certainly there are many theologians, theists, philosophers and people of intelligence who follow the ideas you suggest above - however fundamentalists are what drives the kind of everyday events on which the topic is based.


----------



## Blind Dog (5/9/14)

[SIZE=medium]I had a fairly long winded post ready, but now it’s pointless as you’re moving the goalposts and I’m throwing my hands up in despair. :super:[/SIZE] 

[SIZE=medium]Seriously though, I will happily accept that from your point of view, religion and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive. However, I also hold that any system that does not allow for criticism, debate, and progress, tries to impose its will on others, has commandments that lists barbaric punishments for seemingly petty offenses, and scriptures that promote the use of extreme violence against unbelievers is necessarily the antithesis of science, or at least of what science should be. Unfortunately for many that is exactly what religion is.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]You may not be defending fundamentalist religion, but you are posting in a thread about Islamic State. It’s should be fairly easy to see why there may not be a great deal of support for the view that religion is a good thing.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]It may well be that the Bondi Orthodox Jews used to tell you that sacred texts are abstract stories to explain an abstract concept, and not literal truth and that may well be accepted by many. However, if a so called sacred text contains commandments with barbaric consequences, exhortations to eradicate the apostate/infidel/gentile, and demands blind obedience then it very existence creates the possibility of a literal, fundamentalist interpretation. I doubt Islamic State would exist without the Koran and Islam. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]And that ended up long winded anyway. And now its beer time[/SIZE]


----------



## pk.sax (5/9/14)

I'm amazed how some people have kept this religiously on topic.


----------



## jimi (5/9/14)

Seriously though, I will happily accept that from your point of view, religion and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive. However, I also hold that any system that does not allow for criticism, debate, and progress, tries to impose its will on others, has commandments that lists barbaric punishments for seemingly petty offenses, and scriptures that promote the use of extreme violence against unbelievers is necessarily the antithesis of science, or at least of what science should be. Unfortunately for many that is exactly what religion is.
And now its beer time[/font][/size][/font][/size][/quote]

The understanding I hope I've presented of religion and it's compatibility with science is a bit more than just my point of view. At the very least it is fluent with the expected learning outcomes to be achieved about the nature of religion at yr12 level in both Victoria and New South Wales. Both the HSC Studies of Religion and VCE Religion and Society courses mandate this understanding on the topic. These are studies which can be chosen at any state or private school in their respective states. I think I need to mention that these studies are obviously written for a secular community and are objectively assessed in much the same way as historical and political sciences, in that no credit what so ever is given to personal persuasion in these studies (which I know should go without saying).
Part of the YR12 VCE Religion and Society course is the topic of 'challenge and response' which looks at how religions are challenged both internally and externally. Pretty hot topic and lots of intriguing controversy as you might expect. Anyway as this course can be studied from the perspective of any major religious tradition, I attended a conference once in which those teaching Islam discussed the obvious issue of extremist / fundamentalist. What a nightmare for moderate contemporary Muslims this is. As I hope I'm getting across, it was clear that frequent aggressive anti-muslim abuse particularly targeting the young moderates is only making things worse. Intolerance breeds intolerance. Criticism needs to be both constructive and informed.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (5/9/14)

This is becoming a case of he who talks the most wins.


----------



## manticle (5/9/14)

What's the prize?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/9/14)

A book of short stories written about 1000 yrs ago


----------



## Camo6 (5/9/14)

Apparently raisins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhmwcmOPemk


----------



## Blind Dog (6/9/14)

manticle said:


> What's the prize?


A night to remember


----------



## manticle (6/9/14)

jimi said:


> The understanding I hope I've presented of religion and it's compatibility with science is a bit more than just my point of view. At the very least it is fluent with the expected learning outcomes to be achieved about the nature of religion at yr12 level in both Victoria and New South Wales. Both the HSC Studies of Religion and VCE Religion and Society courses mandate this understanding on the topic. These are studies which can be chosen at any state or private school in their respective states. I think I need to mention that these studies are obviously written for a secular community and are objectively assessed in much the same way as historical and political sciences, in that no credit what so ever is given to personal persuasion in these studies (which I know should go without saying).
> Part of the YR12 VCE Religion and Society course is the topic of 'challenge and response' which looks at how religions are challenged both internally and externally. Pretty hot topic and lots of intriguing controversy as you might expect. Anyway as this course can be studied from the perspective of any major religious tradition, I attended a conference once in which those teaching Islam discussed the obvious issue of extremist / fundamentalist. What a nightmare for moderate contemporary Muslims this is. As I hope I'm getting across, it was clear that frequent aggressive anti-muslim abuse particularly targeting the young moderates is only making things worse. Intolerance breeds intolerance. Criticism needs to be both constructive and informed.



For my part, I'm happy to accept theism works for some people if they're happy it doesn't work for me. I'd like to be able to express that the reason it doesn't work for me is that the stories are ridiculous, same as me criticising a film or book as being unbelievable. I don't question the right of religion to exist or for people to believe in it but the sacredness within cannot be expected to exist without.


----------



## pk.sax (6/9/14)

It is a cycle, you believe in religion to distract from your (general anyone/mankind) basic instincts and form a cocoon of belief around yourself. Nature is quite giving, religious people often attribute everything positive in their lives to their belief, like believing manifests reality.
Then they defend the beliefs and the struggle against the non-believers becomes a reason to hold on to your beliefs even harder. This replaces almost entirely the original premise for those beliefs.
Then there is disillusionment when it turns out (enlightenment) that your beliefs hold you in no better stead on average than the non-believer. This is release from the vicious cycle of deaths and births of beliefs, an acceptance that you are a part of a big scatter of life, that your existence is only so consequential. It seems a lot of people skip this last bit and carry on running the exercise wheel. It takes an attitude of reasoned questioning and contemplation. Some confidence in your ability to think and create is very helpful. Invariably, scientists and others with intellect end up having the spare grey matter to question themselves.

The rest has been history.

I'm going back to looking at yoga chick pics courtesy of AHB and possibly pitch yeast in the beer today.


----------



## Blind Dog (6/9/14)

@ praticalfool was agreeing with your post and wondering where it was going. Quite articulate, me thought. Then you mention yoga chick pics. But no link. WTF. You bar steward. I hate you so much


----------



## pk.sax (6/9/14)

I swear I only tried to look up yoga friendly man pants on the Internet once. However this stuff is all over my internet google ads feeds now:


----------

