christians and muslims should celebrate their commonalities!

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I always enjoy discussing issues like this with you, because despite our differences, I usually find your replies thought proviking. This one is no different.

I think your point about the Egyptian Ogdoad is sort of a red herring. Of course anti-theists don't find it necessary to scrutinize a dead religion or even a religion that is little known or in the process of dying out. But you use the abrahamic faiths as an example when there are other religions out there with millions of followers (hinduism being just one of them, as I mentioned). For some reason, anti-theists tend to focus mostly on Christianity. I won't speak for you, but of the anti-theists I have as friends in my personal life, most of them are curiously silent (or even supportive) of muslims. They have quieted down their very vocal criticisms of Christianity during the last little while, ever since Islam has been in the spotlight due to terrorism. Curiously, they are claiming "you can't paint all muslims with the same brush" when previously they were doing the exact same thing to Christians.

I will give the OP credit in that regard. At least he has an equal amount of disdain for both, so I don't feel like he's guilty of a double standard. That doesn't change the fact that taking religion out of the equation does nothing to solve the worlds problems. Atheist regimes have killed millions (probably more than Christianity and Islam combined), persecuting religious peoples to create what they thought would be a "Utopian State". Yet people still suffered (the nonreligious included).

If you could turn the entire planet into devout atheists (I like using that term ), you would still have war and strife. People will always find reasons to kill each other. Resources, politics, personal vendettas, racial tensions, etc etc. We could evolve for thousands of years to the point where we colonize other planets and even star systems, and you would still have wars.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I think your point about the Egyptian Ogdoad is sort of a red herring.

I can see how you’d think so. I’ll elaborate and hopefully it won’t look like one.

There are two major factors for me. Number of followers, and the beliefs within the dogma. A religion probably isn’t going to be very impactful if it only has a handful of followers. Yet it’s possible even with 20 people in that faith they could be cause to something terrible in society if they have certain beliefs that would give cause to that. On the flip side if a religion has millions of followers it’s likely it wouldn’t only be impactful to those that adopted it, but also the lives of people throughout the globe. A religion being impactful isn’t an issue in of itself. It depends on the beliefs. It’s quite possible for there to be a hugely adopted religion that is more or less benign. For a religion to be negatively impactful it likely needs a huge following [Abrahamic faiths] and dangerous beliefs [Abrahamic beliefs for example].

Let’s pretend Jainism somehow overnight became a religion in numbers on par with Islam. Their philosophy is all about non-violence. Here is the central tenet in Jainism:

'Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being.’

Can the Quran make the same claim of non-violence? No it cannot. There are verses in the Quran that condones its followers to kill me in terrible ways for being the anti-theist I am. Whether a Muslim will act on such a belief, or even have belief in that aspect of the Quran, doesn’t negate it’s in the Quran and therefore potentially grounds for a theologically justified action from another Muslim. Yet…. the chances for that to happen with Jainism won’t increase with an increase in its followers. The beliefs for murderous actions are just not there. If they did such an act it wouldn’t be on religious grounds [in fact it would be contrary to them].

So I didn’t mean for the Egyptian gods to seem like a red herring. I have no qualm with them because as you said it’s a ‘dead religion’. My concern is towards religions I feel are impacting the world in negative ways. Or at the very least have that potential.

Since you mentioned Hinduism I want to add that I do have antagonistic thoughts towards it. Depends. They vary in their beliefs even more than the differing Christian denominations. There are ones that qualify for my criteria and does get my condemnation though. I was involved in a very active thread in ATS years ago which was about Hinduism and the OP was a Hindu sharing his beliefs and basically trying to convert us. Believe me I didn’t just throw up my hands and say “it’s cool man you’re not Christian, we’re good”. I did my best to destroy his arguments. His beliefs happened to be immoral in my eyes.

I won't speak for you, but of the anti-theists I have as friends in my personal life, most of them are curiously silent (or even supportive) of muslims. They have quieted down their very vocal criticisms of Christianity during the last little while, ever since Islam has been in the spotlight due to terrorism. Curiously, they are claiming "you can't paint all muslims with the same brush" when previously they were doing the exact same thing to Christians.

I absolutely agree with all of that. Additionally I have witnessed it many times. It’s a problem. Religion is already a discussion taboo, but society [including those who were/are anti-religious] have somehow convinced themselves Islam is an exception and deserving of apologists. You’re right there is a lot of hypocrisy here. I’m proud to say I’m not one of them. I was recently in a discussion on Facebook with my Muslim friend in Egypt, and my argument was that ISIS is representative of Islam. Not exactly something that’s well received by most people religious or not.

Atheist regimes have killed millions (probably more than Christianity and Islam combined), persecuting religious peoples to create what they thought would be a "Utopian State".

Hmm I have reservations in agreeing with you. Atheism is void of any philosophy beyond an absence of belief in deity(s). The actions you’re describing from those regimes don’t come from atheism directly. If so what atheistic belief is that? I’d be more inclined to believe said dictator took some points out of Nietzsche’s work.. or something along those lines.

If you could turn the entire planet into devout atheists (I like using that term
)

Problem I have with that is it sounds too close to the whole “atheism is a religion” and “Atheism takes just as much faith..”. I’m sure you have heard this ad nauseum: atheism is a lack of belief in god’s existence, but it isn’t necessarily a claim of knowledge towards’s god’s existence. I don’t believe in the existence but I also don’t believe I know no god exists. It’s possible. Find out when I die perhaps. The atheists that claim that knowledge are doing so illogically, and I would argue that towards them. I do think we can disprove some religions however, just not the general god concept.

you would still have war and strife. People will always find reasons to kill each other. Resources, politics, personal vendettas, racial tensions, etc etc.

Absolutely. However I see no reason that being understanding of that means we should be apathetic to the idea of making changes and refinements in our World.

Let’s say an extensive and really compelling study arose that just really made a strong case that people shouldn’t legally possess handguns. For whatever reason it was determined overall a bad thing for the health of society. The argument was ironclad [pretend lol :p]. Would it be a legitimate rebuttal to say “Well people are violent. If they don’t have handguns they will just use knives or bats”. Surely people are violent, and will continue to be. Does that understanding automatically negate this hypothetical compelling case against handguns? Is it not possible that while it won’t remove violence entirely it could still help? *Invent a different argument for me here if the gun example isn’t palpable.

I realize these bad actions can and will occur outside religion, and therefore also in your hypothetical all-secular society. I just see no reason to believe there isn’t room for growth despite our human nature to do unethical things. Obviously I am implying forsaking religion would be a positive thing ultimately. Obviously you wouldn’t agree there. Yet I hope that made a bit of sense.

originally posted by: Saylesie17
a reply to: BlueMule

Thankyou but im a brother lol, always have problems with my name everyone thinks im a girl lol why. you guys are ace but ima man

Thank You brother for explaining why you are an lol girl ace ima man. You have every right to your belief (in expression) and applaud you.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

hello there

Technologal advancement is not the pre requisite for a harmonious society. You say improved but thatfrom one angle. Alfred Nobel was horrified at his invention.

Which 50 counties and which religion? I'm sure that yo will find that certain religions are lower than others. Countries that developed like the USA and the UKwere for the most and up until recently strong cChristian faith countries.

many beneficial inventions come from religion and religious people as well as secular. However science has has also produced many threats or is being and recent used in secular hands for not so benign purposes.

Religion has had its moments but its up until recently that religion pthat has developed these countries. Now they are have abandoned God they are falling down that index.

You confuse the limited benefits but ignore the dangers.

Newton was a christian
Heisenberg Lutheran
Kepler Lutheran
Pauling lutheran
Plank protestant
Fermi catholic
Harvey Anglican

Currently and for some time science is now breaking down society slowly and surely its more intrusive and destructive to human society.

a reply to: drevill

Technologal advancement is not the pre requisite for a harmonious society.

I didn't directly say that. It is however quite obvious most of the societies in our world now depend on technology to run harmoniously. To deny that is either willful ignorance [likely] or you truly don't know better.

You say improved but thatfrom one angle.

Air conditioning. Refrigeration. Cars. Computers. X-Ray machines. Smart phones. PCs. Defibrillators. Hearing aids. Pacemakers. ... I could go on and on and on here. I'm sorry you're not appreciative of this, I am. Technology and science go hand in hand.

Which 50 counties and which religion?

The point was straightforward. You basically said a secular society is trash. I clearly showed that's not the case in the real world.

USA and the UKwere for the most and up until recently strong cChristian faith countries.

As far as I know USA is still predominately Christian.

many beneficial inventions come from religion and religious people as well as secular.

Indeed but it's science that's being used, not religion. That's an important understanding. Just because the scientist is also religious doesn't mean he's using some new form of science that's blending religion into it. They use science just like the secular scientists.

However science has has also produced many threats

Science is neutral. People produce threatening things. Yes sometimes we make and or use technology that is threatening. I certainly wouldn't argue against that.

You confuse the limited benefits but ignore the dangers.

Perhaps you undermine the benefits

Currently and for some time science is now breaking down society

No it's not. It's breaking down religious beliefs and you don't like that.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

OK despite putting word into my mouth andnthe odd insult I'll take the first so called benefit

Air conditioning.

Despite its reported benefits and the world getting by without it

The new major powerhouses of India and China have increased the demand for air con.
Using air con in vehicles uses more petrol. In the USA vehicle air conditioners use roughly
8 billion gallons of it.

Its projected that the world will use 10 trillion watts of electricity per year on cooling alone and when you consider China and India usingnso many coal fired plants you can add that to the mix. 40% of electricity in Mumbai goes to aircon units.

The gases that are usednin these things has changed but even the newer gases that are used are still many many times more potent than carbon dioxide with regard to the green house effect.
Additionally they are not as effiecient in removing heat so they consume more electricity.

There are health risks in with coolant leakage and poor maintance

a reply to: drevill

Let's just cut to the chase shall we.

Is it your opinion our society [yours or mine] does not need technology to function properly? Yay or nay?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Need? Depends on how and what you consider technology and what you deem as functioning properly. But ultimately in the long term no. What technology has done IMHO in a nutshell has allowed our population to be the size it is. And I'm not saying this is bad. But people lived before it and they will live after it

What about yourself? Surely you can see its not all beneficial and its not all been used for benign purposes.

Anyone believing the world is harmonious is not looking at it with both eyes open. Even down to a household level. Arguments about what's non TV music sports etc etc

a reply to: drevill

Oh regarding religious beliefs

My faith belongs to me. As a Christian despite being concerned for others I have been given prophetic word in the bible about the lack of faith in the world is in a way an encouraging because as the bib!e says this will happen before Jesus returns.

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: drevill

Oh regarding religious beliefs

My faith belongs to me. As a Christian despite being concerned for others I have been given prophetic word in the bible about the lack of faith in the world is in a way an encouraging because as the bib!e says this will happen before Jesus returns.

Most people aren't Christian, and it's always been that way. Seems whoever wrote the bible has had christians on tenterhooks for the last 2000+ years....

a reply to: drevill

If we stripped hospitals of medical technology, removed tech from factory farming, and took away the trucks from long haul drivers which transport necessary things all over the nation every single day..... lots of people would die. That's just a realistic ramification.

You said earlier that science was a menace to society. Technology is the result of science.

To say science is a menace to society is simply the result of someone not truly thinking through everything that statement represents.

This seems quite obvious to me, and I'm not sure it's worth exploring off topic any further.

Of course we produce technology that causes harm to society. Something I already acknowledged. That doesn't mean science is a menace to society.

a reply to: drevill

As a Christian despite being concerned for others I have been given prophetic word in the bible about the lack of faith in the world is in a way an encouraging because as the bib!e says this will happen before Jesus returns.

Lots of really disastrous things are said to occur before his return. On one hand I can see how a believer would look forward to his return, but on the other hand, given the implications of his return, I think it's rather morbid and twisted to 'look forward to it' to the 'End of Days'. That's all from my perspective anyways.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
a reply to: rokkuman

You should refrain from speaking on behalf of all Christians and all Muslims. Both religions have many variations and interpretations. It's not one person's responsibility to distill this down to what they think is correct.

On the contrary, I think rokkuman thinks its his job to be the 'enlightener' regarding his theory "the hidden similarities of Christianity and Islam": no need to sugar coat his very clear message (both enjoy a hatred of Judaism and those practitioners of). Why include Christianity; because there was a separation in 300 AD? and there is a perception of old lingering 'bad blood'?

Take the first sentence:

"Both christians and muslims detest the idea of a secular one world order where people of all backgrounds, beliefs, sexual orientations are equal."

That's a blanket statement that can't possibly be validated as correct. It doesn't matter what the OP, you or I believe to be true. You can't start a rational argument with a subjective statement.

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing
originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
a reply to: rokkuman

someone: You should refrain from speaking on behalf of all Christians and all Muslims. Both religions have many variations and interpretations. It's not one person's responsibility to distill this down to what they think is correct.

VHB: On the contrary, I think rokkuman thinks its his job to be the 'enlightener' regarding his theory "the hidden similarities of Christianity and Islam": no need to sugar coat his very clear message (both enjoy a hatred of Judaism and those practitioners of). Why include Christianity; because there was a separation in 300 AD? and there is a perception of old lingering 'bad blood'?

newWorldSamurai: Take the first sentence:

"Both christians and muslims detest the idea of a secular one world order where people of all backgrounds, beliefs, sexual orientations are equal."

That's a blanket statement that can't possibly be validated as correct. It doesn't matter what the OP, you or I believe to be true. You can't start a rational argument with a subjective statement.

Yes you make a good point as this is entirely subjective; and I will expand here, obviously coming from a biased (therefore imperfect) point of view.

originally posted by: rokkuman

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

You first point is so ridiculous I am not even going to respond to it..

my first point is smack on target because christians and muslims are indeed opposed to secular one world order/
its also true that christians would love a one world order in which christians are in control.
and that muslims would love a one world order in which muslims are in control.
you are running away from the fact it seems.

The last election in Australia I as a Christian voted the Sporting Shooters and Fishing party, non religious and secular, hmmmm, I must not be a Christian according to your theory?
I would never vote for a Christian party unless in the lower house as I dont think Christians would make wise politicians, see they are no different from secular politicians, wrong. Just like me.
I am not saying Christians should not be represented or not in politics.
I would hate a world where Christians were in charge, indeed a world ruled by secularists, pagans or muslims as well.
The Catholics did that in Europe, they were called the dark ages if I remember correctly?

No not Christians in charge of my world, Jesus of the Bible in charge of the perfect world would be my ideal.



As for Ephesians 5:22-24 rokko, why are you quoting what the bible states to justify your argument, why not what it states that destroys your argument, read on a dozen more verses, quote them if you have the courage

a reply to: borntowatch
Separation of Church and State is described in the USA's constitution (illuminated a major problem). I wish there were other parties here (we have only 3 notable). I would vote for the fish/game party or "can I regain the mineral rights to my property party".