This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

Jump to new
luutzu said:
What's Kung Fu wanna be? It's Bruce Lee wanna be. And who wouldn't want to be Bruce Lee? He made Keanu Reeves look like a girl scout.
Click to expand...

Pfff. Keanu Reeves makes Keanu Reeves look like a girl scout.

So what im saying is Christians can bend rules which seem irrational where as muslims cannot.
Click to expand...

Everyone can bend rules. To repeat: nothing in the Koran says to wear a veil, or a hijab, or whatever. The only rule for women different to men regarding dress is that they have to cover their boobs. People made the rest up.

People who don't bend their religion's rules, who read it as written, are called fundamentalists. That's what "fundamentalist" means.

Go, read, become one with the Word of Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

There are fundamentalists of ALL religions, and all of them suck balls. Except for the ones that worship at the altar of the SmellyTerror - those droogs are RIGHT.

But Christian fundamentalists have murdered WAY more than the ISIS and AQ wannabes ever have.

Then go to the folk who "reinterpret" the scriptures (which is exactly what Whabism is - a recent reinterpretation of Islam, in response to the colonisation of Arab lands by foriegners) The Lord's Resistance Army makes Isis look like a bunch of pussies. I'm feelin' gregarious, here's a link for them, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

Or my main man, General Butt Naked (another link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Butt_Naked). A weird-ass blend of Christianity and tribal gods, and tell me if that dude doesn't scare you way more than poor stupid Osama hiding in a little slice of domestic hell...

People suck! People will find an excuse to kill people. If they didn't have gods, they'd make new ones, or say they were gods, or that their sport's team was better and the ref had it in for them, or that their gang was harder and needed to prove it, or they'd decide that their "race" had some kind of manifest destiny (did you know that in Sudan, when one tribe rapes and murders the other, they chant songs calling the losers "black"? These are *Sudanese* people, but yeah, one mob thinks they're less black than the other).

Islam isn't evil.

It's just human.

And humans are evil.
 
And I should add, what most people think are religious rules are just... culture. Culture with God backing it up.

Totally right, the bible doesn't say squat about what a witch is (I think the only line is something like "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live amongst thee"). People made the rest up. Because how else could you justify killing the Widow Osborne and nick all her stuff?

The bible doesn't say not to use a condom, or not to have an abortion. In fact, until abortions became reasonably safe and available, Christian dogma (for most of two thousand years) had it that a fetus didn't have a soul until the "quickening" - at about 20 weeks, when you can feel it move.

Until that change, a pregnant woman could be executed (remember how we used to do that a lot? Until we got rich enough for life-terms?), but only until the quickening. But then abortions came along and maybe let people do more of the sexy sex, and suddenly the old celibate men of the church were all, OH! God totally changed his mind about the souls. Got 'em special delivery. No sexy sex!

And yeah, most of the "muslim" stuff everyone worries about is actually "Saudi" stuff. And believe me, the KSA is the second most messed up nation on earth, right behind North Korea. That's where most of the money and people - and ALL of the ideas - for modern "Islamic" terrorism come from. Wipe out the ****ed up House of Saud, and you'd clean up your black-flag infestation over night.

...but they are STUPIDLY rich, and in any case, they got all the oil, and keep it coming our way. Easier to let some random civvies get splattered than upset that lil' apple cart.

Don't trust me. Look it up. And then wonder why the hell our (or anyone's) pollies don't even talk about it...
 
darkhorse70 said:
VC, ive never rrad anywhere in the bible that stuffs witches etc should be stoned, byt thats not to say ive read it completely. .
Click to expand...

Exodus 22:18

Thy shalt not suffer a witch to live.

But the difference between the koran and the bible is that christians acknowledge it was written by man and definitely mantipulated while muslims believe the koran is the words of god.
Click to expand...

Nope, many Christians believe the bible is the absolute word of god, see the video i post below.


Id still rather be a christian anyday haha
Click to expand...

That probably just comes down to the random chance of the time and place you were born, and the culture of your parents.

Why not just be your own man? If your going to use your preexisting morality to pick and choose which bible passages to listen to and which to ignore, why not just get rid of the bible altogether and just trust your own morality.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysecinv367w[/video]
 

Mate, radicals in Australia probably want all the jews kicked out, and want to nick all the chinese folk's stuff. Radicals are nuts. That's why we call 'em radicals.

Don't dignify idiots with labels like "terrifying". I mean, half the point of terrorism is to make people scared - don't go and do their job for them! They're just idiots. War-tourists and murderers looking for an excuse and idiot kids who just want to be in the cool gang.

Indonesia is Muslim majority, and HINT, is nowhere near having sharia law. Even the try-hard scare piece you linked admitted that. All those people who think da mussies are coming to chop our hands off should have a good hard look around next time they're in Bali. If only a tiny crackpot fringe of idiots took offense at all that debauchery and Hindu godlessness and white folk drinking and screwing, in a Muslim majority country, then doesn't that actually tell you that maybe Muslims aren't necessarily the scary monsters you seem to think they are?

If these morons terrify you, I dunno how you leave your house...

(PS: SmellyTerror above is actually me. No idea how I have two handles).
 

I haven't read Noco's article, but there are two issues in your paragraph that need correcting.

Indonesia is Muslim majority, and HINT, is nowhere near having sharia law.

Syria law has been implemented in Aceh province since 2001

http://www.rappler.com/world/region...sia/70321-aceh-passes-stricter-new-sharia-law

... in a Muslim majority country

Although Indonesia is predominantly Muslim, Bali is not. Bali is predominantly Hindu and things are tolerated there that would not be tolerated in the rest of Indonesia.

That being said, I do agree that as far as majority Muslim countries go, Indonesia is one of the most tolerant.
 

Well, I did crack a joke about the Balians being Hindus, but yeah, poorly phrased.

My point is that a even a Muslim government doesn't just jump in and impose sharia on all the infidels. People in Australia seem worried this tiny minority will get us with the Sharia, yet even in a country where the majority are Muslim, it doesn't necessarily follow.

Relevant to the idea that "Islam is inherently evil". To me, it seems more like people being people, and religion being an excuse.

...and Aceh is Aceh. It's had a pretty damn rough history, and any sign of independence from Jakata is super popular there. Being "more muslim" than the rest of Indonesia is kinda their thing, I reckon. Sorta like the deep south in the US being more Christian than the rest of them.

But yeah, we're in agreement overall.
 
VC I have my own rules of morality but what if god is real. Why risk my fate? If its not then I lost nuthing. If it is then I get to live in heaven. I understand the implications or consequences of religions so I guess its a double edged sword.

I cracked up at the link you sent.
 
darkhorse70 said:
VC I have my own rules of morality but what if god is real. Why risk my fate? If its not then I lost nuthing. If it is then I get to live in heaven. I understand the implications or consequences of religions so I guess its a double edged sword.
Click to expand...

Pascal's Wager

The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics. (An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.)

His argument goes something like this: God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe in God and he does not exist then at worst all we have forgone is a few sinful pleasures.

If we do not believe in God and he does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but we may face eternal damnation. If we do not believe in God and he does not exist then our sins will not be punished.

Would any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation?
 

yea... but...

What if the person does not choose to be in God's religion, what if that person belong to some other deity or none at all?

If I break Australian laws in Australia or its jurisdiction, then I'd be punished for it. But if I'm not under its jurisdiction and would never be within it, can an Australian judge punish me?

So I'd say it's more rational to not belong to any religion, that way you get off scott free. And if you've lived your life saintly, all deities and religion would want you if you apply then.

So Pascal's argument is only rational if you believe there is only one true God and all other religions are bunk.

------

But it is reasonable that religion served the purpose of keeping most citizens within the norm of socially accepted morality - that since we don't know for sure if there's eternal Hell or Bliss, let's not go too far off the morality path, let's do something charitable now and then and hope St. Peter would weigh up our minor sins against our good work and with a little begging, we could slip through.
 

You don't mince words do you?
 

I enjoy reading that.
 
Exactly retired young. Plus I believe energy cant be destroyed merely transferred. We can only operate under our 5 senses so how can not even comprehend what may be beyond our limits.

And lutzu. I agree. If god does exist, im sure he wouldnt blame me for not having faith if I didnt. After all, all factors have shaped or formed my beliefs in some way so how accoutable can one be?
 
luutzu said:
yea... but...

What if the person does not choose to be in God's religion, what if that person belong to some other deity or none at all?
Click to expand...

What? This is totally oblique and internally inconsistent. Was this an attempt to probe into logic?


luutzu said:
If I break Australian laws in Australia or its jurisdiction, then I'd be punished for it. But if I'm not under its jurisdiction and would never be within it, can an Australian judge punish me?
Click to expand...

Yes. Anyone who actually is a political scientist with even the slightest interest in international security matters know this.


luutzu said:
So I'd say it's more rational to not belong to any religion, that way you get off scott free. And if you've lived your life saintly, all deities and religion would want you if you apply then.
Click to expand...

Whoever said that the religion of whoever the true supreme being had to be saintly... how exactly do you get off scott free when the beliefs can be diametrically opposed? Rational? Anything but. A logical fallacy. Unjustifiable assumptions made in a vacuum devoid of fact. Say whatever you want.


luutzu said:
So Pascal's argument is only rational if you believe there is only one true God and all other religions are bunk.
Click to expand...

Your argument, or 'inductive logic', is not rational or even close to being correct. This stuff just completely evades you. I'll pass on expanding.

------

So is religion or its interpretation causative of behavior? Or were social norms (or a subset thereof like, say, an imam or a prophet for this context) responsible for the interpretation of religion or even the creation of the religion itself? Or are they just correlated and you have made the determination of causality with ethereal data?

If it is reasonable, as you say it is, that religion served the purpose of keeping most citizens within the norm of socially accepted morality and a large proportion of a population actively embrace the religion (ie. a causative direction and judgment has been made by you), then if the population exhibits higher criminality adjusted for everything under the sun, the Milky Way and God's and the mythical Phoenix's whole creation whether he/it does or does not exist.....is it reasonable that the religion is somewhat lacking with respect to this issue? That it might be not so much 'half-arsed', but nonetheless lacking on the ability to retain order or behave in a way befitting the societies they inhabit? Alternatively, it could also be said that this religion encourages adverse behavior. If it's not the religion, then it's the people...if so, I can concede that the religion is not evil in this case. It's the people who are badly behaved. What will it be?

Looking forward to your next obfuscation / misinterpretation / non-sequitur.
 
DeepState said:
What? This is totally oblique and internally inconsistent. Was this an attempt to probe into logic?

Yes. Anyone who actually is a political scientist with even the slightest interest in international security matters know this.
Click to expand...

I thought the logic was pretty straight forward.

Say I'm a Buddhist, I have my own god and he is the Buddha. The Monotheist God, the Western God, is not my maker. How could that God judge and punish/reward me when I do not recognise His existence; when Buddha's laws is the ones I submit to?

Say Australia has a law against alcohol. If I'm not an Australian, if I'm Chinese, or American, and I down a couple of beer in China or the US... You're saying that I can be punished by an Australian judge? Can any country punish anyone who is not its citizen and who commit its crimes outside its jurisdiction?

That is only possible if Australia has jurisdiction over the whole world and its law is universal.

Same with God... as I said, if you do not believe in any other deity, if there is only one God and his name is God, Allah, Jehovah... then yea that Pascal logic applies. Else it does not.

But if you're right, a lot of Buddhists and Taoists and Hindus have a lot to worry about. And a lot of Christians who eat beef has a lot to worry about with the Hindu gods.



If a Buddhist is judged by the Buddha; if a Taoist is judge by, i don't know, Lao Tzu or something; if Christians and Jews and Muslims judged by God... it must follow that an Atheist, one without a god, cannot be judged by any. Hence, scott free.

Again, that statement above is only illogical if you believe there is only one God and the entire Earth and human race is His creation.




A religion that encourages adverse behaviour to its society is call a cult. Remember how Christians were underground, Christianity considered a cult and feed to the lions etc. by the Romans?
 

Yup, why would God punish you when it is Him who created everything around you, including you. If God always do things, if things always happen because God have his reasons, then isn't it God's fault?

There's been a lot of people since Noah, doing a lot of things... Does God really have that much time and that much resources to see and record everything we do? Seriously?
 


Pascal's wager is flawed,

Firstly it is based on there only being two options, but really there are thousands of different versions of gods,

So the first flaw is that you may pick the wrong god, and just make the real god madder, most of the religions have the largest sin as being worshipping a false god, if the Muslims are right, and you have been worshipping Jesus, your screwed.

The second flaw is that its not a free bet, if you really want to get to heaven, you have to give up things in this life and perhaps even reject people whom you would live a better life by embracing. Giving up things in this life is a real cost.

The third flaw, is that Pascal's wager assumes you can fool a god into letting you into heaven by offering half assed belief.
 
darkhorse70 said:
Plus I believe energy cant be destroyed merely transferred. ?
Click to expand...

What does the conservation of energy have to do with religion?

If i burn a deck of cards, the energy it contains is transferred into the environment, but the deck of cards is destroyed, just like when you die, and your brain stops functioning, the energy in your body with slowly be transferred into the environment as your decomposed, but none of your personality will survive that decay.

We can only operate under our 5 senses so how can not even comprehend what may be beyond our limits
Click to expand...
.

Well we actually have a lot more than 5 senses, but i get what your saying, but the time to believe in something is when we have evidence for it, whenever we have had supernatural causes given for a phenomena, when we have finally figured out the real cause, its always been a natural cause. When ever we have made up stories to fill holes in understanding, we are nearly always wrong.

.
If god does exist, im sure he wouldnt blame me for not having faith if I didnt. After all, all factors have shaped or formed my beliefs in some way so how accoutable can one be
Click to expand...

Do you care whether the things you believe are true?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fun with ChatGPT
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
SirRumpole
August 2025 DDD
2 3
Replies
54
Views
8K
ducati916
Iran Is not Iraq
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
16K
Dona Ferentes
K
  • Poll
FOS - Is it independent or is it controlled by a corrupt Bank?
Replies
0
Views
3K
Keighery
K
Top of this cycle for ASX 200, cash is king?
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
19K
kahuna1
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...