What are some problems with the atheist movement?

I think there are a few problems with the atheist movement.

The first problem is elitism. Atheists have coined new terms to describe their nonreligious views, such as "Bright" and "freethinker". These terms imply that theists aren't bright nor do they think freely. Many theists have shown that they are capable of being bright; that doesn't mean that their arguments are right but that they know how to argue persuasively and be well-informed on a subject. Also, although religion and traditional belief in God are certainly opposed to freethought, it's admissible that some religious people and theists do strive to think without appealling to authority, tradition, dogma, or showing any bias. Now, whether they actually do put up evidence-based and unbiased arguments is to be debated.

The second problem is snobbery, which originates from elitism. Many atheists are hostile towards not only religion (which isn't a problem), but their followers (which is a problem). Atheists often throw out names to label popular religious leaders, movements, and traditions. It is acceptable to disagree, but if the person is not harming you then it makes no sense to call them names unless they truly deserve it. This is much like calling President Obama an idiot for once making a gaffe claiming that there were 57 states in the U.S. It was simply a mistake and not a indicator of his intelligence. I used a moderate liberal as an example, but this applies to people of all persuasions. Also, just because a Christian tells you that you're going to hell doesn't make it right to tell them to go f*** off. Two rights don't make a wrong. This snobbery has been expressed by the American Atheists with their new billboard sign that says, "You Know It's a Myth" in reference to Jesus's Virgin Birth. Let's win hearts by evidence, not by assertions. This AA billboard is like a negative advertisement. You're attacking something that is very personal to many people and you're doing it to try to get atheists out of the closet? Does that make sense? It seems that it is more likely that Christians will view atheists negatively and atheists will feel (although they shouldn't) that they will have to keep their beliefs private.

The third problem is permissiveness. Whereas snobbery describes the New Atheist movement, tolerance describes the more permissive branch of atheism. These atheists believe that Christians can logically believe in both the Bible and evolution and that extremist Islam is a perversion of the foundation of Islam. They think that "all religions are equal" and they deserve to be respected while calling for a allegorical interpretation of religion, which is completely missing the point of religion. While atheists should respect everyone's right to religion, provided the religion is not used to cause harm, that doesn't mean we should actually respect all religions. It's fine to admit the good points of religion. All of the Ten Commandments have been infused into American culture. Most of them have had a positive impact.

The fourth problem is dishonesty. Atheists don't like to admit this, but believing in God can be inspiring. It can encourage you to do great things regardless of whether or not there is a God. Theists give more to charity, which according to most atheists is good (although I disagree), and theism can greatly prevent depression and consequently, suicide. Let's face it, it's hard to get inspired if you think of everything in the natural world as the product of an accident. Instead of having a purpose given to you by a higher authority, you have to seek meaning in your own life and give it meaning by living it, a much arduous task. Atheists like to pretend that they're better people and perhaps their reasons are more honest for being good (they do good not out of fear of God, but out of the love of each other), but they haven't really lived up to their expectations.

The fifth problem is association. Much like a liberal appears to win a debate by falsely calling a conservative a racist for opposing affirmative action, atheists love to dismiss arguments because they are dependent on or supportive of religion. Case in point: embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage, Intelligent Design. ID, in particular, is often dismissed by atheists without even looking into the arguments. Atheists claim that ID is a religious conjecture and not a scientific theory. It claims that because science can only study the natural world, ID cannot be viewed from a scientific viewpoint, other than to dismiss it. Yet, they ignore the fact that if God exists, the natural world can be studied to see how exactly God created it, if he did. Atheists should distance their atheism on subjects that don't pertain to it. Whether or not a human embryo is a living human is not a question of religion, but of science and philosphy. Whether or not same-sex marriage is acceptable is not a question of religion, but of civility. Whether or not ID is true is not a question of religion, but of science. Atheists should not label something a religious matter simply to dismiss talking about. Open discussion is good, but many atheists don't want to permit this.

A lot of these problems are not present in just atheists. For example, I'm very tired of the pro-life movement limited itself to only the evangelical branch of Christianity or Catholicism. I also get tired of them going on a tangent on unrelated social issues like same-sex marriage. Stick to the issue at hand. Everyone loves to connect dots though as they see fit. I'm sometimes a great offender of this rule.

Anyway, what are your criticisms of the atheism movement?

The first problem is elitism.

The second problem is snobbery,

The third problem is permissiveness.

The fourth problem is dishonesty.

The fifth problem is association.

Genetic_Code

2. I dont agree with you on this, I think it's actually neccessary if you want religious people to take your argument seriously.

3. I completely agree.

4. I kinda agree BUT I believe an educated fully functional person can live a much more fulfilling life than with the restrictions of religion. But I really dont know what the solution is for the millions of poor and unfortunate people around the world whos sole comfort is god. And I have always maintianed that I am a non-believer with a regrettable disbelief.

5. Religions themselves have a say in a wide variety of stuff and their believers will get very biased in favour of it. Religion influences many people's views on such matters so I dont see no wrong with this one. Heck I dont see what you are saying, religion specifically tells it's followers what should be done about homosexuality and abortion so yes religion is a culprit in this.

I think Stephen Batchelor's description of the atheist movement as "anti-theism" more aptly describes what you are getting at here. Atheists exist "without God," or less literally, they can be described as "not theists." People like Dawkins, Hitchens and the variety of arrogant internet adolescents who go around attacking theism as a "wrong" belief aren't atheists, because they don't just reject belief in God, gods and the supernatural, they go out of their way to try and prove they don't exist. Which of course is impossible to prove, given that they are said to exist outside the empirical realm.

Anyways, to cover your points.

1. Elitism: I agree here. Though, I'd say the majority of non-fundamentalist theists and religionists who have affirmative belief either don't wish to have an argument (because they know what they believe and feel others are free to believe what they want) or don't present a logical argument because they don't have one (belief in the existence of the supernatural is irrational, no matter how you spin it; it might not be wrong per se, but it isn't rational or objective).

I personally enjoy constructive discussion and debate regarding metaphysical existences, philosophical ideals and just basic religious topics. What I find kind of interesting is how through the history of Buddhism in India, everyone who had money held religious debates where the top teachers and intellectuals of the various traditions met in an open forum and debated their position, until someone was declared a victor. This idea is built into modern Tibetan Buddhist education, and I think it is largely missing from Western religious discussion. One should see what it is like to argue a position they don't agree with, and be able to defend it against something they might agree with.

2. Snobbery: This is why, while technically an atheist, I hate associating myself with the term. I can't stand people who are fundamentally opposed to opposing views, that they have to show why they are wrong, and why their own beliefs are right. This isn't how we help tolerance. If anything, this is just making it worse, and just as bad as when a fundamentalist Christian tells us we are wrong for not believing in God/Jesus and we are all going to Hell unless we convert.

3. Permissiveness: I guess that makes me one. And I disagree, figurative interpretations of religious texts and teachings carry far more value than literal and historical interpretations. Believing Jesus was resurrected or that Noah's Flood actually occurred doesn't make one a good person. Upholding Jesus' idea of absolute compassion for all people, and practicing prayer to help you become less selfish is the "point" of religion. It is creating a "habit" of being inclined to selflessness and compassion that makes religion a good force in society. Which is why I think the majority of religions and people practicing on this planet these days have lost the point of their religions to dogma and literalism. They don't realize that religion is something to inspire one to focus on people other than themselves... instead of just paying lip service to take advantage of the benefits the community offers them.

4. Dishonesty: I think this applies to both "camps" as it were. Theists also too often think that "lacking belief in God" prevents people from being moral, or compassionate/selfless. Which isn't true. I can't count how many threads have been made in OT to this effect, and the amount of people who actually believe such a thing. Morality stems from a lack of selfish desire. It is the desire to put others before oneself and make them just as happy as you.

5. Association: ID has to be dismissed scientifically. It has no objective or rational basis. If of course people of religion posit that it was extra-terrestrial beings far more advanced than us who came to Earth a couple billion years ago and set life in motion, then sure, that has an objective basis. But the majority of ID proponents put that creation on God, a being that supposedly exists outside the realm of objective reason. There is no point in discussing ID in science because it is something that has to be accepted through faith, not science. One cannot verify how "God" created the universe by observing the universe, because we have to know God exists for it to be scientifically reasonable to assess HOW he did it.

--

My biggest problem with anti-theists is that they are trying to undermine and destroy religion and are basically doing for science and absolute objectivism what fundamentalist and extremist Christians/Muslims are doing for religion; trying to make their points of view absolute, and not allowing open debate and discussion... which would lead to greater tolerance and most importantly, greater understanding of our existence.

Since reading Kripal, getting back into Buddhism, and retro-actively looking at my past experience in religious studies, I feel religion, when practiced "properly" has a very positive effect not only on society, but on the human experience. Granted, one does not need to be a Christian, or even a Buddhist to introspectively dig into their subconscious, but then again, I am defining "religion" far more broadly than generally accepted. It is merely the act of looking inward at the subjective "self" rather than outward to how that "self" interacts with the world around it.

Of course, I reject the idea of a "self" that persists in the same form over time, but that is largely irrelevant to the point I am making. Science and objective analysis gives us the means of defining the relative world around us... but religion (in the very broad sense, probably better defined "philosophy") gives us the subjective analysis that gives us a means of defining the ultimate world "inside" of us.

The points you raised are definitely good, but I think applying them to all atheists is invalid, as not all atheists are out to destroy religion... in fact, many of them value religion, they just don't see belief in God, gods or the supernatural as necessary to find the philosophical "truth" of the universe.

--

Also, on an unrelated note, I find it interesting how modern Theravada societies (Sri Lanka, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.) condemn homosexuality despite there being no mention of anything in the Buddha's teachings, or the Pali Canon about homosexuality being wrong. It is merely a misinterpretation of the one aspect of "Right Action" from the Noble Eightfold Path that mentions one should abstain from illicit sexual activity or sexual misconduct (which basically implies rape and incest). The Buddha never once talked about homosexuality being "wrong" or even "bad." His concerns were with the ultimate realization of emptiness, not the workings of the relative world.

My biggest problem with anti-theists is that they are trying to undermine and destroy religion and are basically doing for science and absolute objectivism what fundamentalist and extremist Christians/Muslims are doing for religion; trying to make their points of view absolute, and not allowing open debate and discussion... which would lead to greater tolerance and most importantly, greater understanding of our existence.

foxhound_fox

I vehemently disagree with this point. All you have to do is go on youtube and search either Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, or Dennet (all of whom are probably the most well recognized and most influential anti-theists) and you can find a plethora of debates and forums where they openly discuss God and all things god-related. These men very rarely shy away from debating their views. I consider myself an anti-theist as well and I love debating theists. 

5. Religions themselves have a say in a wide variety of stuff and their believers will get very biased in favour of it. Religion influences many people's views on such matters so I dont see no wrong with this one. Heck I dont see what you are saying, religion specifically tells it's followers what should be done about homosexuality and abortion so yes religion is a culprit in this.

Gambler_3

It is possible for a religious person and a nonreligious person to come to the same conclusion, depending on the issue and usually for different reasons. I gave the example of the Ten Commandments in Problem 3 as an example of being able to respect some aspects of religion. "You shall not kill" and "you shall not steal" are accepted by most atheists to be appropriate commandments, mainly because they form the basis of the right of life and property. I'm not going to play devil's advocate and argue against same-sex marriage, but I will say that there are secular arguments against same-sex marriage, even if they aren't completely logical (and by the way, neither are the religious arguments). Also, I believe it is logical to believe that a human's life begins at conception and therefore abolish abortion as a form of murder. As for ID, I can't even imagine playing devil's advocate for the atheists who believes in ID, but that's why I said that secular arguments aren't always applicable for every issue. This doesn't mean ID or anything else religious in nature should be dismissed because it's religious in nature.

@foxhound:

I actually would describe myself as an antitheist. I don't think God is a concept someone can justifiably believe in. However, there is a difference between campaigning against theism and ridiculing believers. I think atheists should be more civil when talking about the believers even if it's behind their back in case someone overhearing what they say won't feel inspired to be mean and ugly toward believers if the believers don't deserve it.

One thing I don't like is when I see an atheist have a debate with a theist over scripture. To me, this is an utter waste of time. Being a clever chap and organizing your points and counter-points are in vain when your opposition can just fall back on faith when backed against the wall. If you're dealing with someone who has years invested into his/her religion, chances are that nothing you present will satisfy him/her to the point where they'll consider being wrong (based on what I've seen, at least). Sharing ideas with a theist is fine, but debates are pointless a lot of the time. dracula_16

This is an annoying thing about theists, not atheists.

1. The reason why some atheists prefer the terms "Bright" and "Freethinker" is because they actually describe a position rather than a non-position, unlike antitheist. The word "atheist" simply means "non-theist". It would be like calling ourselves "non-astrologers." Personally I don't prefer any of those words, but prefer the term "secular humanist". It is however disingenuous to suggest that those terms imply theists are not bright/freethinkers as the words do not say anything about theists. I'll give you an example. Suppose atheists called themselves "chocolate-lovers", this does not imply theists don't love chocolate, and in no sense implies elitism.vTunes

The problem I see with that analogy is that loving chocolate has nothing at all to do with atheism; one does not reject theism because one loves chocolate.  Conversely, when an atheist calls himself a "freethinker" or something similarly, the implicit assertion being made is that he is an atheist because he is a freethinker.  Furthermore, when an atheist blanketly calls atheists as a whole "freethinkers", he is essentially equating atheism with freethinking.

Granted, logically speaking, saying that atheists are freethinkers is not logically equivalent to saying that theists are not freethinkers.  It could, of course, be the case that the speaker believes that everyone is a freethinker, and it would of course then be trivially true that atheists, being a subset of "everyone", are also freethinkers.  However, what then would be the purpose of declaring atheists to be freethinkers, if indeed one also believes that theists are freethinkers?  One does not make such a declaration about that which is true about a broad group except to draw a contrast, and the only contrast there that could exist is between them and theists.  And if indeed "atheists are freethinkers" intends to draw such a contrast, the only conclusion to be reached is that it also implicitly intends to say that theists are not freethinkers.

One of the biggest pitfalls of applying logical rigor to natural language is that it completely ignores human emotion and the imprecision in everyday language.  It does, however, make for good minutiae for which lawyers often grasp... :P

It could, of course, be the case that the speaker believes that everyone is a freethinker, and it would of course then be trivially true that atheists, being a subset of "everyone", are also freethinkers.  However, what then would be the purpose of declaring atheists to be freethinkers, if indeed one also believes that theists are freethinkers?  One does not make such a declaration about that which is true about a broad group except to draw a contrast, and the only contrast there that could exist is between them and theists.  And if indeed "atheists are freethinkers" intends to draw such a contrast, the only conclusion to be reached is that it also implicitly intends to say that theists are not freethinkers.GabuEx

I think confusion stems from a disregard of the definitions of these words, which is different from the traditional. We are dealing with homonyms, such as gay (happy or homosexual). But before I go into that, we may already agree not all atheists are "Brights" or "Freethinkers".

Let's start with Freethinkers:

Genetic_Code previously said, "Atheists have coined new terms to describe their nonreligious views…" ergo elitism. However, the term free-thinker "emerged toward the end of the 17th century in England to describe those who stood in opposition to the institution of the Church, and of literal belief in the Bible" and can hardly be considered a new term. That aside, what exactly are freethinkers? Simply put, they are practitioners of freethought as defined below:

"Freethought: a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any dogma. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers."

So, does this include all atheists? No! Does this exclude all theists? No! Does this exclude all deists? No! Does this exclude all agnostics? No! You can find atheists who appeal to tradition, theists who subscribe to dogma, and deists (atheists, theists, creationists, etc.) who may reject certain established scientific theories. There is no test that you have to be an atheist in order that you may be considered a freethinker, and there is nothing elitist about the term, nor is it exclusively reserved for atheists.

Secondly, the Brights (which is a new term) is defined as:

"The Brights movement: a social movement that aims to promote public understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, including equal civil rights and acceptance for people who hold a naturalistic worldview."

As Dawkins pointed out, on the choice of the term "Brights":

"Like gay it should be a noun hijacked from an adjective, with its original meaning changed but not too much. Like gay it should be catchy: a potentially prolific meme. Like gay it should be positive, warm, cheerful, bright."

And as Dennett also elaborated;

"There was also a negative response, largely objecting to the term that had been chosen [not by me]: bright, which seemed to imply that others were dim or stupid. But the term, modeled on the highly successful hijacking of the ordinary word gay by homosexuals, does not have to have that implication. Those who are not gays are not necessarily glum; they're straight. Those who are not brights are not necessarily dim"

As you should realize by now, the term "brights" has nothing to do with "intelligence", just as the word gay has nothing to do with "joyousness" within the constraints of their respective definitions. Like "freethinker", there is no atheist test in order to be a "Bright". In fact, "Registrations [on the Brights website] even include some members of the clergy, such as Presbyterian ministers and a Church History Professor and ordained priest"

PS: I borrowed heavily from Wikipedia for this post :)

@Genetic_Code After reading your post, I was quite surprised to later read that you would describe yourself as an antitheist, which is sort of contrary to your signature (good because of loving God...) vTunes

I think you misread that, I might be wrong but that reads like a portion of an Ayn Rand quote. At least when I read it, it seemed to be suggesting that concern for one's well-being should be the source of one's moral behaviour.  

(long post)

vTunes

Interesting, but then what is the purpose of using those as a substitute for "atheist" if they mean nothing of the sort?

[QUOTE="vTunes"]@Genetic_Code After reading your post, I was quite surprised to later read that you would describe yourself as an antitheist, which is sort of contrary to your signature (good because of loving God...) Frattracide

 I think you misread that, I might be wrong but that reads like a portion of an Ayn Rand quote. At least when I read it, it seemed to be suggesting that concern for one's well-being should be the source of one's moral behaviour.  

 Ya, I think I did in fact misread it. 

The second problem is snobbery,Genetic_Code

I think this is also one of my main gripes with Atheism. Popular atheists like Patcondell and Thunderf00t spend a a lot of their time degrading Religions and demeaning or humiliating their followers.

I just have very little respect for that type of approach.

I think this is also one of my main gripes with Atheism. Popular atheists like Patcondell and Thunderf00t spend a a lot of their time degrading Religions and demeaning or humiliating their followers.

I just have very little respect for that type of approach.

SpinoRaptor24

I disagree - I think Pat Condell is as un-snobbish as you can get.  I think you purposefully ignore the difference between taking insult and being insulted.

Back on topic, I'd like to see some data to back up your claims Genetic_Code: that religion is super for depression. I thought the reverse was true.

I see the main problems with atheism as follows:

Lack of understanding - The concepts of atheism and agnosticism (and the associations between them) are in flux. The meanings most of us in this group ascribe to atheism and agnosticism are not globally shared, so people do still view atheists in terms of "rebels against God", or "people who don't want to follow any rules or have someone in charge over them". In the same way as religion gets "taught", cynicism and skeptical enquiry could be substituted or taught along-side. I think more people would state their thoughts about atheism and meaning if it seemed more open and natural to do so. I'd prefer an equally evangelically rational response to all public declarations of faith. 

No organisation - A lack of consistent organisation and representation leads to a lack of organisational effectiveness. This is a huge issue for atheism (just like anarchy). It might seem odd to have a group that represents an absence of belief (until you understand why it would be good to do so). There are problems with secularism too: Arguing from a secularist standpoint does accept the validity of religion to an extent. It can also lead to religiously-focused issues; as the right not to be insulted is often confused as being more important than the right to free speech. 

Examples of this are that of the Secular Society (who often get atheist-related media coverage) and of the English Defence League (who often get more media attention because of their direct action). The former seems far too laid back and dithery, while the latter is too radicalised, focused on Islam and consumed by nationalism. 

Religion - If it were not for religion, we would not need atheism - and that would be good. I see atheism as doing two things:

It provides compelling rational arguments for people not to have faith in any of the many religions, so it is a useful starting position to question faith and explore belief from.

More importantly, atheism acts as a basis for further personal growth, philosophy and education, rather than being an end in itself. I see atheism as a gate-way to other things. I can't see anything wrong with the term "free-thinker", since I see religious conviction as severely constraining education to specific doctrine and ways of thinking.

Kripal and Rand - Finally, I don't know much about Kripal or Rand. I hear there's the naval-gazing, personal growth, new-age hippyism and seeming condoning of religions by using human ego and love of mystery of Kripal. Rand seems to be rigidly entrenched in an absolutist position by mixing particular economic models, pseudo-religion and personal character flaws in her preachy atheist moralising.

I disagree - I think Pat Condell is as un-snobbish as you can get.  I think you purposefully ignore the difference between taking insult and being insulted.RationalAtheist

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I disagree - I think Pat Condell is as un-snobbish as you can get.  I think you purposefully ignore the difference between taking insult and being insulted.SpinoRaptor24

He has mentioned on more than one occasion that he enjoys offending creationists, much like Thunderf00t. If talking down on people isn't "un-snobbish", then what is?

I've not heard those personally offending remarks from him. Please let me know what specific videos he says that in. Aren't you being snobbish too for talking Pat down here (as I'm being to you?)? 

Are you a creationist? Do you get easily offended by criticism?

I've not heard those personally offending remarks from him. Please let me know what specific videos he says that in.

RationalAtheist

Link. Not a blatant insult mind you. I know it's probably petty but I find it rather discouraging that he takes pleasure in offending people.

Do you take pleasure in offending theists?

Are you a creationist? Do you get easily offended by criticism?RationalAtheist

No not really. I am a Muslim living in a non-muslim country, so naturally people are going to be more comfortable criticising Islam and all. I've had my fair share of remarks online. I mean I've debated a few people who were organizers of anti-Islamic websites (TROP and such).

Link. Not a blatant insult mind you. I know it's probably petty but I find it rather discouraging that he takes pleasure in offending people.

Do you take pleasure in offending theists?

SpinoRaptor24

It depends what you mean by "pleasure" and "offending".  Has it turned from snobishness to shadenfreude now? Snobishness is a view of superiority, i.e. looking down on people (just like "saved" religious people do on "lost" non-believers). Whereas causing offence does not need any demarcation over superiority. You must take some solace from criticising atheism yourself; from what you write on this board - despite what your religion says about associating with infidels. 

 I am a Muslim living in a non-muslim country, so naturally people are going to be more comfortable criticising Islam and all.SpinoRaptor24

That is an interesting confession, but perhaps it's best to clarify; Do you think it is a good thing for non-Muslims (even Muslims) to be openly critical of Islam, especially in Muslim-majority countries?

It depends what you mean by "pleasure" and "offending".  Has it turned from snobishness to shadenfreude now? Snobishness is a view of superiority, i.e. looking down on people (just like "saved" religious people do on "lost" non-believers). Whereas causing offence does not need any demarcation over superiority. You must take some solace from criticising atheism yourself; from what you write on this board - despite what your religion says about associating with infidels. 

RationalAtheist

I don't think it's cool to mock those who don't agree with your ideology. I come here to have meaningful discussions with those of different beliefs.  My Religion says a variety of things on non-muslims, depending on who they are what their motives mat be.

Why should countries "be" Muslim? If you think that, then no wonder you feel oppressed. I think you should get used to taking criticism while living in "non-Muslim" countries; then either acting on it or rejecting it. At least you have the opportunity for debate in such enlightened places.

Are you taking offence on behalf of the creationists here? Perhaps some of them organised these anti-Islamic websites you debated. 

RationalAtheist

Hm?

I don't think I ever said what you're saying, and I wasn't trying to imply it either. I merely stated that people will feel comfortable attacking those of different faith, and gave an example using my faith. By no means do I feel "oppressed" here (not yet anyway). Most of my debates and arguments have been here on the Internet. I wouldn't say that I do it on behalf of Theists. In fact, most of the people I debated were Christians

That is an interesting confession, but perhaps it's best to clarify; Do you think it is a good thing for non-Muslims (even Muslims) to be openly critical of Islam, especially in Muslim-majority countries?

vTunes

I think it's good to for them to ask questions regarding our Religion and to further increase their knowledge. Many will always be on the assail, I don't think it's good to be so blatant of it. People take things too far, like having a "Draw Muhammad Day!" and such.

But there's little point in complaining and whining about it. Like I said before criticism is unavoidable, especially now that so many  Muslims can do absurd things. It's really sad to say that far too many Muslims in our time just to don't understand (or completely ignore) what Islam truly teaches.

I think it's good to for them to ask questions regarding our Religion and to further increase their knowledge. Many will always be on the assail, I don't think it's good to be so blatant of it. People take things too far, like having a "Draw Muhammad Day!" and such.

But there's little point in complaining and whining about it. Like I said before criticism is unavoidable, especially now that so many  Muslims can do absurd things. It's really sad to say that far too many Muslims in our time just to don't understand (or completely ignore) what Islam truly teaches.

SpinoRaptor24

The more questions I ask about Islam, the more horrified and sickened I get by the answers from that faith and its adherents. So what if people have a "draw Muhammad day". A picture of Muhammad might make you rage, but it would make no real difference to me (or you or anyone else really either). Isn't it better not to get offended by images of your religious leader, or is there some rational basis for not depicting Muhammad?

You say that "too many Muslims don't understand Islam" as if you have some full understanding of it. How do you know that you understand correctly "what Islam truly teaches", rather than those Islamic people you criticise for basing their view of Islam on a different emphasis over the same doctrine?

I don't think it's cool to mock those who don't agree with your ideology. I come here to have meaningful discussions with those of different beliefs.  My Religion says a variety of things on non-muslims, depending on who they are what their motives mat be.

SpinoRaptor24

And I wouldn't strictly define religions as ideologies. Your religion says variety of things on a variety of things. - Handy, that is. 

This all comes back to confusing criticism as being mocked, or rational comments about the absurdity of aspects of the religion being taken as attacks on the faith. Without the risk of offending, you loose the right to debate freely. Similarly; if one denies people the ability to mock, one will never realise what a mockery they've become.

People take things too far, like having a "Draw Muhammad Day!" and such.

But there's little point in complaining and whining about it. Like I said before criticism is unavoidable, especially now that so many  Muslims can do absurd things. It's really sad to say that far too many Muslims in our time just to don't understand (or completely ignore) what Islam truly teaches.

 

SpinoRaptor24

Do you think that if certain islamic groups didn't react so violently to things like cartoon images of Muhammad, protests like "Draw Muhammad Day!" would have occurred?

Honestly, I thought the event was a little immature, but  on the other hand, it seems to me an entirely justified reaction to the threat of violence.

The more questions I ask about Islam, the more horrified and sickened I get by the answers from that faith and its adherents. So what if people have a "draw Muhammad day". A picture of Muhammad might make you rage, but it would make no real difference to me (or you or anyone else really either). Isn't it better not to get offended by images of your religious leader, or is there some rational basis for not depicting Muhammad?

You say that "too many Muslims don't understand Islam" as if you have some full understanding of it. How do you know that you understand correctly "what Islam truly teaches", rather than those Islamic people you criticise for basing their view of Islam on a different emphasis over the same doctrine?

RationalAtheist

What did you find distasteful? Penalty for apostasy and such? I know we don't see eye to eye, but I still find Islam to be a beautiful Religion. I do agree with you here, pictures don't mean much to me, neither do petty insults. People have too much time on their hands. The Prophet (peace be upon him) saw people who would desecrate the Masjid by urinating in it, and he would only reproach them with good manners. Hes always taught us to rebuke people using good manners and kindness.

Islam has always preached kindness and justice. Fundamentalists just don't want see it like that.

Do you think that if certain islamic groups didn't react so violently to things like cartoon images of Muhammad, protests like "Draw Muhammad Day!" would have occurred?

Honestly, I thought the event was a little immature, but  on the other hand, it seems to me an entirely justified reaction to the threat of violence.

 

Frattracide

It doesn't mean much to me, but as we've seen people tend to exaggerate far too much on the most trivial of things. What's kind of silly is that most of these usually stem from on or two people with too much time on their hands drawing some cartoon. 

And I wish Muslims wouldn't react so violently over such childish things.

Similarly; if one denies people the ability to mock, one will never realise what a mockery they've become.RationalAtheist

Soooooo the best way to show people what a mockery they've become is to mock them further? I guess that may seem like a good tactic from your perspective, but generally uttering the wrong words can have huge consequences in our belief.

Are you doing this to promote Islam, or to scrutinise your own views? What about Muslim countries: Do you expect the country you live in now to give up its democracy for Sharia?

RationalAtheist

I enjoy engaging in discussions between people and to clarify some misunderstandings about my Religion. That's pretty much my reasons.

And no, I don't expect my country to adopt Sharia, even if it did it wouldn't make much of a difference to me (apart from a few small things).

What did you find distasteful? Penalty for apostasy and such? I know we don't see eye to eye, but I still find Islam to be a beautiful Religion. I do agree with you here, pictures don't mean much to me, neither do petty insults. People have too much time on their hands. The Prophet (peace be upon him) saw people who would desecrate the Masjid by urinating in it, and he would only reproach them with good manners. Hes always taught us to rebuke people using good manners and kindness.

Islam has always preached kindness and justice. Fundamentalists just don't want see it like that.

SpinoRaptor24

Islamic Sharia seems like its a throwback to the bad old days of civilisation. Society has evolved so that rational discussion and discovery is far more important and valuable to progress than irrational doctrine-based rules. Sharia states are run by only those most fixated by the doctrine that keeps them (and those like them) in control. I see no division between Islam and Sharia.

There are many different types of Muslim (Sunni, Shia, etc) who seem to hate, or disagree violently with each other. There does not seem to be any form of "apologetics" for the religion though. I do find this odd because all these strange ideas about women covering up, not eating pork, resisting bodily functions, disrespect of other beliefs, terrorist attacks, etc never seem to get explained or condemned with any suitable moral or social justification. 

If Muhammad taught Muslims to reproach desecrcaters only using kindness, why is there so much violence (more than 100 deaths over the Danish cartoon, for example) in Islam. How can you dissociate all the hate in the Quran from all the good in it?

Why does your view of Islam differ from a more fundamentalist view? Aren't they fundamentally the same?

Soooooo the best way to show people what a mockery they've become is to mock them further? I guess that may seem like a good tactic from your perspective, but generally uttering the wrong words can have huge consequences in our belief. 

SpinoRaptor24

Are there any "right" words to say that there is room for disagreement and criticism of Islamic beliefs? There is once again a large amount of room for paranoia about being mocked when the discussion is relevant and innocent. Why not instead respond in a way that defends the position allegedly being mocked? In that way you'd show others that any perceived mocking was unjustified. Of course, it is far easier to get offended instead.

I enjoy engaging in discussions between people and to clarify some misunderstandings about my Religion. That's pretty much my reasons.

And no, I don't expect my country to adopt Sharia, even if it did it wouldn't make much of a difference to me (apart from a few small things).

SpinoRaptor24

I'm glad you engage here enthusiastically. Are you clarifying your own misunderstandings or ours though? 

Some Sharia countries are making the news... Pakistan is having murders and violence over repealing the death sentence for blasphemy. Sudan is splitting in half, Somalia banning handshakes and walking in public.

Civil liberties, free speech and scientific discovery are not small things. 

No it's not. Much of Islams laws and teachings that were first taught over 1400 years ago can still be implemented today. There's nothing irrational about teaching people to enjoin the good and forbid the bad. Mankind will always quarrel and fight over trivial things, so holding a conviction against followers and dismissing Religion because of it won't get you very far. Should we really resent a Religion based on its followers? I mean Christianity is a Religion that preaches to its followers to love their enemies and to give the other cheek when hit, yet we've seen the Crusades, the KKK and the brutality towards natives by Christian settlers. Would it be fair if my perspective on Atheism and Atheists were based on videos like this?

There are many apologetics, they just get overlooked in favour of trying to find flaws or cherry picking and such. You can find them on the net. Here is a short video by the late Sheik Ahmed Deedat explaining the veil in Islam. And Islam has always promoted science and research of our world, to appreciate it more. Some of the tools we use in technology today were first discovered by Muslims hundreds of years ago, much earlier than the Europeans.

There certainly isn't any paranoia regarding these discussions. We've all been composed and replied sensibly.

No it's not. Much of Islams laws and teachings that were first taught over 1400 years ago can still be implemented today. There's nothing irrational about teaching people to enjoin the good and forbid the bad. Mankind will always quarrel and fight over trivial things, so holding a conviction against followers and dismissing Religion because of it won't get you very far. Should we really resent a Religion based on its followers? I mean Christianity is a Religion that preaches to its followers to love their enemies and to give the other cheek when hit, yet we've seen the Crusades, the KKK and the brutality towards natives by Christian settlers. Would it be fair if my perspective on Atheism and Atheists were based on videos like this?

SpinoRaptor24

It all depends on what you (or your religion) define as good and bad. Are you an Aquinas lover, yourself? The first thing that guy says in your video is that he admits he's a high school dropout that can't count on his fingers. Once again, this video is not picking on a mere follower of Christianity, but one of its architects and what he said about Christianity (that fundamentally affected peoples' understanding of Christian faith). I've picked on Aquinas myself in this union. 

I think the fair thing to do in grounding your opinions of atheists is to see the range of belief and debate that all types of atheists expound, including the chap in your video. The irrationality comes in in doggedly adhering to outmoded ways of thinking and not even accepting that there is any discussion over preferable alternatives.

Do you think I should base my impressions of Islam on all of its followers, just some of them, or the words only (and if so, which Hadith?).  

There are many apologetics, they just get overlooked in favour of trying to find flaws or cherry picking and such. You can find them on the net. Here is a short video by the late Sheik Ahmed Deedat explaining the veil in Islam. And Islam has always promoted science and research of our world, to appreciate it more. Some of the tools we use in technology today were first discovered by Muslims hundreds of years ago, much earlier than the Europeans.

There certainly isn't any paranoia regarding these discussions. We've all been composed and replied sensibly.

SpinoRaptor24

That was not really apologetic at all! He says that women should cover up because it says so in the bible and because nuns don't get raped (when they do). Does that mean Muslims should follow the bible and really be Christian? He didn't answer the question asked at all. Did you hear how the crowd gasped as such a question was even asked?

I think you'll find that early Orthodox Christians translated Greek ideas for early Muslims, while European Christians suppressed Greek advances in Europe. Europe quickly caught up and over-took the Islamic world during the Renaissance period. This was once Europe had freed itself of oppressive religion - funnily enough! That's when discovery re-started again and gave us the secular industrial revolution.

I suggest the line at 1000ce for the Middle East would be slightly above Europe and slightly rising. I would like you to have a go at answering some questions I asked in my previous posts - to clarify any misunderstandings I might have.

[...] And Islam has always promoted science and research of our world, to appreciate it more. [...]SpinoRaptor24