Fitna

[BrianBlessed]

I think the only singular film/documentary which I have found to be credible on the subject of extremism, both Islamic and Christian, is Adam Curtis' The Power of Nightmares. Mainly because it doesn't tend to make any huge judgements but rather make a conprehensive trawl through history and events.

I suppose we should probably worry, but then again humanity has been trying to deludedly screw itself over for years in one way or another so it's not exactly a new worry anyway.

[Rkiver]

<snip> Well put post there</snip>

Religion is a mental delusion, a weakness of the mind. I will not respect it. Not now, and not ever. I respect your right to believe in it though. A subtle, but crucial, difference.

Well, at least you respect the right to believe in religion. What do you base the idea (that is what I'd say it was) - that religion is a mental delusion - on? A purely scientific view of the world?

Actually a psychological one. You're talking to something in your head, that for all intents and purposes isn't actually there, and expecting results. That is the hallmark of certain mental disorders.

[KingAl]

14:31, "In 1945, Nazism was defeated in Europe. In 1989, communism was defeated in Europe"
No. The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were defeated. Also, these are political ideologies, not religious ones.

Furthermore, the statement that the Nazi Party and the USSR were 'defeated in Europe' rather disingenuously implies that their defeat was down to Europeans.

If you have to "defeat" anything related to Islam, then it is not Islam that must be defeated, but religious extremists as a whole - no matter the religion. "Defeat" in this case meaning pacify.

A frequent argument used to counter Wilders. Many people - including me - believe that the problem doesn't lie so much in the Quran, as it does in the interpretation of it. Extremists in particular are of course subject to this.

Of course, if the Qur'an didn't exist it wouldn't be available for misinterpretation; I can't imagine suicide bombing would be quite so popular without the promise of 72 virgins - or grapes, pick your translation - in the afterlife. On the other hand, almost anything can be construed to imply whatever doctrine you feel is appropriate - just look at Social Darwinism - so it's a moot point.

[Feud]

Religion is a mental delusion, a weakness of the mind. I will not respect it. Not now, and not ever. I respect your right to believe in it though. A subtle, but crucial, difference.

Poor bastard. Brainwashing children should be outlawed.

Here is a nice slice of irony pie. In a thread about an offensive and insulting religious movie, it is atheists who feel the need to be offensive and insulting towards those who are religious.

That's not to say you don't have every right to say it, I feel that you should, it just seems funny to me.

[Rkiver]

I've never apologised for my views on religion. I have had people trying to force it down my throat for years who showed me no respect. As a result I have little to no respect for religion, and from what if you want to get down to a strict definition of delusional behaviour you will find religions do fit into it.

However as I have also said multiple times, and that distinction seems to be missed, usually by those who claim to be religious. I respect your right to your beliefs, but I do not respect what you believe. I am not attacking the person (unless they give me cause to by being hypocrits in and of their own beliefs, which is most Christians to be honest).

As for it seems funny, yes hysterically funny. I find it even funnier that those who claim to be part of peaceful religions are the ones blowing people up, support gun ownership of automatic rifles at the like. That's irony right there.

Still, you have the right to believe what you want. I have the right to point out the facts as presented to me. Overall no religion deserves respect, or to be held over the heads of any others. Keep your religion to yourself, it has no right to tell others what to do or how to live.

[Feud]

Well, at least we can agree to laugh about the situation (even if we are laughing at different parts). So long as it isn't James Bond villain maniacal laughter, we should be okey.

[Rkiver]

Well, at least we can agree to laugh about the situation (even if we are laughing at different parts). So long as it isn't James Bond villain maniacal laughter, we should be okey.

Awwwww, I wanted maniacal laughter.....

But yes the situation is indeed a bit daft overall. All worked up over nothing.

[prophile]

Woo, I'm such a leftist.

On topic: I hate hate.

[martin]

Religion is a mental delusion, a weakness of the mind. I will not respect it. Not now, and not ever. I respect your right to believe in it though. A subtle, but crucial, difference.

Poor bastard. Brainwashing children should be outlawed.

Here is a nice slice of irony pie. In a thread about an offensive and insulting religious movie, it is atheists who feel the need to be offensive and insulting towards those who are religious.

That's not to say you don't have every right to say it, I feel that you should, it just seems funny to me.

I don't think either of those are terribly offensive, Rkiver was saying that he thinks religion is a "weakness of the mind", which isn't really insulting :/

And I agree with Pox

Actually, what I find funny is when the decline of religion is blamed on the "youth of today" just "not caring", which may be true, but then a lot of much older and very intelligent scientists are also atheist - presumably they just don't care either?

[Xocrates]

Actually, what I find funny is when the decline of religion is blamed on the "youth of today" just "not caring", which may be true, but then a lot of much older and very intelligent scientists are also atheist - presumably they just don't care either?

Fun fact: The most religious persons I know are young and scientists.

[Radiobuzz]

I wrote some sort of essay not too long ago about religion, unfortunately is in Spanish . In a nutshell: I believe everyone have the right to think whatever they feel is true, and this applies to every context (although it's trickier in aspects not connected to religion because in most causes you usually have proof which always inclines the balance to a certain way). The problem for me appears when religious people use their beliefs to interfere with other people's life, people which don't share those same beliefs. For example, is perfectly alright for me if a person tells me that he or she hates the color red and consider it evil. But it's not alright if that person goes on to kill a lady wearing red just.

I think there are boundaries that people shouldn't cross. In a more real example, I heard about "intelligent design" being tought in public schools in the USA, which I believe to be completely nonsensical. Not only the concept of creationism itself, but I'm talking about society rules. You live in a society and you have to co-exist with people with different beliefs, so public schools has to be laic by definition, otherwise you'll have to teach every religion's dogmas. Including the raelian idea of aliens creating us and other things which for most people is considered simply stupid.

With all this said, I think that noone would have a problem with any religion if all the religious people use their "divine" judgment only on people of the same group. But, of course, that's not possible because mostly every religion also commands to interfere with other people's life.

[martin]

Actually, what I find funny is when the decline of religion is blamed on the "youth of today" just "not caring", which may be true, but then a lot of much older and very intelligent scientists are also atheist - presumably they just don't care either?

Fun fact: The most religious persons I know are young and scientists.

really? 0o

wow...

I can't think of any examples other than Steve Grand off the top of my head as a strongly atheist scientist, however I know there are more - *goes to wikipedia to refresh memory*

Anyway, you can't deny there has definitely been a decline in the number of people attending church?

[xander]

Actually, what I find funny is when the decline of religion is blamed on the "youth of today" just "not caring", which may be true, but then a lot of much older and very intelligent scientists are also atheist - presumably they just don't care either?

Fun fact: The most religious persons I know are young and scientists.

That is a little odd. The most recent statistics that I have seen show that older and more poorly educated people are more likely to be more religious, while younger and better educated people are more likely to be irreligious.* Now, the polls cited below only regard Americans, as far as I can tell, so I suppose that it is possible that Europe is different, though I would find that hard to believe. So, while it is not surprising that you know young, well educated scientists who are religious, there is probably some observer bias there with regards to how prevalent they are. Always remember, the plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes," not "data."

* http://www.gallup.com/poll/20329/Religi ... -None.aspx
* http://www.gallup.com/poll/22885/Twenty ... d-God.aspx

xander

[Xocrates]

Keep in mind that this is Europe I'm talking about. Despite the fact that those persons (they're some 2 or 3 by the way) are the most religious folk I personally know, they're nothing compared to... say... Feud.

In fact, if they were as religious as Feud, Feud would by comparison be the Head of The Spanish Inquisition (I bet you weren't expecting that)


The odds you mention, xander, aren't wrong, but there is something that I would like to say. I know a lot of people that go to the church regularly, yet I seldom, if ever, heard a religious word out of their mouth.

[Feud]

That is a little odd. The most recent statistics that I have seen show that older and more poorly educated people are more likely to be more religious, while younger and better educated people are more likely to be irreligious.* Now, the polls cited below only regard Americans, as far as I can tell, so I suppose that it is possible that Europe is different, though I would find that hard to believe. So, while it is not surprising that you know young, well educated scientists who are religious, there is probably some observer bias there with regards to how prevalent they are. Always remember, the plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes," not "data."

* http://www.gallup.com/poll/20329/Religi ... -None.aspx
* http://www.gallup.com/poll/22885/Twenty ... d-God.aspx

xander

Well, the second poll deals mainly with people believing the Bible to be literal word of God. This doesn't necessarily reflect someone being religious or not, growth in non-Christian religious groups could account for some measure of the change.

As for the first poll, they admit that they changed the wording in 2001 in order to make the data more accurate. So, it will take many more years of research to see if the number of youth professing non-belief is growing or otherwise impacting the number of older people who profess non-belief, or if it is a normal sociological event where people grow more religious as they age.

If such is the case, we must ask why older people are more religious. Is it a result of having grown up in a more religious time, more experience in life impacting their opinion, awareness of approaching death coupled with a need to reconcile oneself with their own passing, or something else.

In fact, if they were as religious as Feud, Feud would by comparison be the Head of The Spanish Inquisition (I bet you weren't expecting that)

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.