Islam - What's your view on it?

[kennylmao]

I know and I fully condemn it.

However you seem to then be taking that an turning it into any form of Islam, anyplace on the globe as being the same; then further projecting that to Multiculturalism doesn't work if it includes Islam in any way.

As a result you can (and at times have) come across as just as intolerant as those you rightly condemn.

I supposed I've let my emotions into play.

Which Muslim country or which brand of Islam allows apostasy for Muslims or interfaith marriage with Muslims?

Yes. I am being intolerant of intolerance. Is there a threshold of tolerance? I'm an atheist not only for the reason I do not believe in God, but it's mostly for the reason I do not want to associate myself with any side. Religion (along with race) ultimately divides humanity. I choose to be neutral. That said, I am willing to join any religion which is tolerant and will allow me to leave if I happen to change my mind in the future.

 

[Scaff]

I supposed I've let my emotions into play.

Which Muslim country or which brand of Islam allows apostasy for Muslims or interfaith marriage with Muslims?

Why does it have to be a Muslim country? But to be specific Turkey (to a degree) and certainly any truly secular country has it enshrined in law (and would as a result be Multicultural).

Keep in mind however that, again, this doesn't just apply to Islam, Hindus for example can be just as extreme in this regard.

Yes. I am being intolerant of intolerance. Is there a threshold of tolerance? I'm an atheist not only for the reason I do not believe in God, but it's mostly for the reason I do not want to associate myself with any side. Religion (along with race) ultimately divides humanity. I choose to be neutral. That said, I am willing to join any religion which is tolerant and will allow me to leave if I happen to change my mind in the future.

I have to be honest you don't sound like an atheist.

I'm not willing to join anything that will limit my rights or dictate norms based around an imaginary being.

 

[LeMansAid]

I have to be honest you don't sound like an atheist.

I'm not willing to join anything that will limit my rights or dictate norms based around an imaginary being.

It would be useful I think if you/others (where applicable) would refer to yourself/themselves as nontheists. The term atheist may gradually be freed from the fanciful extrapolation that tends to occur.

 

[Scaff]

It would be useful I think if you/others (where applicable) would refer to yourself/themselves as nontheists. The term atheist may gradually be freed from the fanciful extrapolation that tends to occur.

Why?

Atheist means 'without gods' and requires no belief. Nontheist would require a positive belief in the absence of gods, which would not describe myself at all (show me that a god is not imaginary and I will quite happily work with that evidence).

However (with the exception of Buddism) all other religions require the positive belief in a god or gods, as such someone who would join such a group (as long as they could leave if they changed their mind) doesn't really fit the description of atheist.

So, in answer, no I will not refer to myself (inaccurately) as a nontheist.

 

[Carbonox]

It would be useful I think if you/others (where applicable) would refer to yourself/themselves as nontheists. The term atheist may gradually be freed from the fanciful extrapolation that tends to occur.

It would be useful if you looked up the difference between meanings of the words "atheist" and "nontheist"...

 

[LeMansAid]

Why?

Atheist means 'without gods' and requires no belief. Nontheist would require a positive belief in the absence of gods, which would not describe myself at all (show me that a god is not imaginary and I will quite happily work with that evidence).

So, in answer, no I will not refer to myself (inaccurately) as a nontheist.

Imaginary - existing only in the imagination.

It appears to me like a superfluous dig at the expense of accuracy. It's the kind of area where religious people begin to find something they can get their claws in to, in alleging that atheism is also a religion. If you can't prove that God/god/gods "exist only in the imagination" then it's a statement of belief.

Now, tell me that you're an atheist but used poor word choice, and I'll have no issue. Defend the wording though, and you'll continue to sell atheists short.

It would be useful if you looked up the difference between meanings of the words "atheist" and "nontheist"...

Think harder.

 

[Scaff]

Imaginary - existing only in the imagination.

It appears to me like a superfluous dig at the expense of accuracy. It's the kind of area where religious people begin to find something they can get their claws in to, in alleging that atheism is also a religion. If you can't prove that God/god/gods "exist only in the imagination" then it's a statement of belief.

Now, tell me that you're an atheist but used poor word choice, and I'll have no issue. Defend the wording though, and you'll continue to sell atheists short.

I think you are making far more of this than you should or was intended, it was a throw-away comment.

However I would say that an argument can be made that says your interpretation is also incorrect, given that you are asking me to prove the unprovable (see Russell's teapot) and that given the lack of evidence presented to support a deity (any of them I'm not fussy) the logical path that they exist in the imagination (feel free to substitute the term belief if you wish) is more than reasonable. Its not a belief, its a reasonable logical conclusion based upon the available evidence. That said imagination is a lot less dangerous than belief.

It also misses the point that my view is open to change based on the evidence that is presented to me, belief is not (and it is this key difference that exists between atheist and nontheist), as such my consideration that its a product of the imagination/belief of the theist is totally moot.

 

[kennylmao]

Why does it have to be a Muslim country? But to be specific Turkey (to a degree) and certainly any truly secular country has it enshrined in law (and would as a result be Multicultural).

Keep in mind however that, again, this doesn't just apply to Islam, Hindus for example can be just as extreme in this regard.

Because Muslim country follow Islamic laws. Where are the Christian countries where the State controls the religion of Christians? What they desperately need is a separation of Church (or Mosque) and State which, in my opinion, would take a miracle to happen after they all teamed up and came up with the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights. Also because I (doesn't affect me directly, more emotionally), along with literally hundreds of millions of other people, are affected by it. To have to live their lives without the basic human right of freedom of religion.

But then again they've asked for it, didn't they? Believing in something as ridiculous as religion. Hah, you deserve to have it take control of your lives, fools! But still, they're just people and I kinda feel sorry for them. *frowning* Sigh, I dunno man.

Not only those two things I mentioned which would be detrimental to a multicultural society but various other views in Islamic culture as well which is at opposition to Western culture, but that's for another time.

I have to be honest you don't sound like an atheist.

I'm not willing to join anything that will limit my rights or dictate norms based around an imaginary being.

What do they say about love? I'm a sucker.

And based on what you said in the other thread, apparently you are too.

 

[Carbonox]

Think harder.

I don't get why you're turning this into a huge issue. Learn the difference between the prefixes 'a' and 'non'. It's that simple really. I will not refer to atheists as nontheists just because you don't understand the difference.

 

[Scaff]

Because Muslim country = Islamic laws. What they desperately need is a separation of Church (or Mosque) and State which, in my opinion, would take a miracle to happen after they all teamed up and came up with the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights. Also because I (doesn't affect me directly, more emotionally), along with literally hundreds of millions of other people, are affected by it. To have to live their lives without the basic human right of freedom of religion.

But then again they've asked for it, didn't they? Believing in something as ridiculous as religion. Hah, you deserve to have it take control of your lives, fools! But still, they're just people and I kinda feel sorry for them. *frowning* Sigh, I dunno man.

Not only those two things I mentioned which would be detrimental to a multicultural society but various other views in Islamic culture as well which is at opposition to Western culture, but that's for another time.

Oh I quite agree that any country that allows religion to run the state is doing it wrong and it will almost certainly result in the removal of rights for a large percentage of the population.

The point I was making is that Muslim States do not equal all Muslims and a good number have managed to and do quite happily accept the balance between secular government and their religion as in for example the vast majority of UK Muslims.

Take the mosque in my home town, its 200m from, and in direct line of sight of an Irish pub and no one (on either side) has any issue with it.

What do they say about love? I'm a sucker.

And based on what you said in the other thread, apparently you are too.

Got me on that one.

 

[LeMansAid]

I think you are making far more of this than you should or was intended, it was a throw-away comment.

However I would say that an argument can be made that says your interpretation is also incorrect, given that you are asking me to prove the unprovable (see Russell's teapot) and that given the lack of evidence presented to support a deity (any of them I'm not fussy) the logical path that they exist in the imagination (feel free to substitute the term belief if you wish) is more than reasonable. Its not a belief, its a reasonable logical conclusion based upon the available evidence. That said imagination is a lot less dangerous than belief.

It also misses the point that my view is open to change based on the evidence that is presented to me, belief is not (and it is this key difference that exists between atheist and nontheist), as such my consideration that its a product of the imagination/belief of the theist is totally moot.

I see a lot of "throw-away" comments from so called atheists that do atheism a great disservice. I think it's quite a big deal actually. I take you on face value that you are atheist in the un-extrapolated sense, but some of your comments are at odds with that. In isolation it'd be a non-issue, but multiply it by goodness knows how many ill-judge comments out there and we're left with a muddied interpretation of what atheism is.

I don't get why you're turning this into a huge issue. Learn the difference between the prefixes 'a' and 'non'. It's that simple really. I will not refer to atheists as nontheists just because you don't understand the difference.

If you take a step back you may realise that I'm very well aware of the meanings. Something is blinding your vision of the true point here.

 

[ClydeYellow]

Which Muslim country or which brand of Islam allows apostasy for Muslims or interfaith marriage with Muslims?

Depends on your definition of "Muslim country".

If by that you mean a country inhabited by a population which is prevalently Muslim, then Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Lybia, Egypt, Albania and Indonesia are all countries which have a population composed of >85% Muslims where interfaith marriage and apostasy are allowed and even protected by law. I think there may be a lot more, tbh.

If you mean, "an Islamic/Islamist theocracy", then of course the answer is: zero. Zil. None. But it'd be like asking, "which Fascist country allows for free speech?" or "which Pope was not Catholic?".

As for brands of Islam that allow for apostasy, well, there are none. Like there is no branch of Christianity or Hebraism or any other religion that allows to refuse said religion while staying inside that religion. It'd be like asking for dry water, dude (and I know that dry water actually exists, but hey, it's just an example, you get the gist of it). A more adequate question would be: which brand of Islam punishes apostasy with death? and really, I think that's just the Salafi jihadists, which are a very small portion of Muslims (far less than 0.5%), just like the Mormons of the FLDS are a very small portion of Christians.

 

[Scaff]

I see a lot of "throw-away" comments from so called atheists that do atheism a great disservice. I think it's quite a big deal actually. I take you on face value that you are atheist in the un-extrapolated sense, but some of your comments are at odds with that. In isolation it'd be a non-issue, but multiply it by goodness knows how many ill-judge comments out there and we're left with a muddied interpretation of what atheism is.

So you ignore the two key points I made (that what I said doesn't constitute belief and that its how I would deal with evidence that differentiate between an atheist and a nontheist) and instead expect atheists to follow a communication code that you seem to have determined but are unwilling to actually detail or explain.

Its actually quite simple and has been explained numerous times across numerous threads, so given that you are ignoring the actual definition and simply want to enforce your own arbitrary code on atheists based on some perceived slight maybe you could be so kind as to detail what this communication code entails and on what authority you use as a mandate to determine the new atheist credo?

 

[Rich S]

Thoughts? this seems to be commmon place in the Islamic interpretation of justice. I've seen burnings before, it was common in ancient times to burn a person or sacrifice alive until death.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/world/asia/pakistan-peshawar-school-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

[Carbonox]

It seems people truly are worried about Islamization in Germany.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30478321

And it certainly doesn't help that, yet again, they're being labeled as extremists by those in power. 👎

 

[Dotini]

There is a great crisis in the middle east, and millions of refugees are coming to Europe.

Since they are employed there doing useful work, and Europe is anyway involved in the middle east crisis, there should be no concerns over the religion of the refugees.

 

[Scaff]

It seems people truly are worried about Islamization in Germany.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30478321

And it certainly doesn't help that, yet again, they're being labeled as extremists by those in power. 👎

Some of the concerns they have may well be legitimate, however once you dress it up in what is effectively the cloth of the far right and its inaccurate nonsense your going to come across as extremist.

 

[LeMansAid]

So you ignore the two key points I made (that what I said doesn't constitute belief and that its how I would deal with evidence that differentiate between an atheist and a nontheist) and instead expect atheists to follow a communication code that you seem to have determined but are unwilling to actually detail or explain.

Its actually quite simple and has been explained numerous times across numerous threads, so given that you are ignoring the actual definition and simply want to enforce your own arbitrary code on atheists based on some perceived slight maybe you could be so kind as to detail what this communication code entails and on what authority you use as a mandate to determine the new atheist credo?

You wrote......

Its not a belief, its a reasonable logical conclusion based upon the available evidence.

A conclusion on your thoughts and a conclusion on the subject matter are completely different things. It's "this is what I think" vs "this is how it is".

You wrote.....

I'm not willing to join anything that will limit my rights or dictate norms based around an imaginary being.

Meaning - "I'm not willing to join an organisation based around something that does not exist". It's a conclusion on the subject matter, and while it's no doubt down to sloppy words rather than an actual active non-belief, it's the kind of thing that reinforces the misconception that atheists are all active non-believers, and it's the kind of thing that's often said as a dig that doesn't even really need to be there. Atheism, put forward in it's truest and simplest form would be a much more palatable proposition for people questioning their religious views. It's the middle ground that should, but too often doesn't exist in the reality of what they're presented with.

It's not merely semantics, it's semantics that really matter and make a difference to people.

You know, many people (including me) would like to heavily question whether or not these women genuinely want to wear a veil. Maybe some of them do, but my speculation is that a lot of them have been brainwashed, emotionally blackmailed and of course, threatened with nasty consequences if they were to refuse.

I too question the integrity of the want to wear the veil, and as it turns out, this ties in somewhat. The equivalent to the above "middle ground" is the right for women to not have to wear the veil but still have their religious beliefs completely untouched. Especially since as I understand it, the various veils are far more cultural than religious. The difference between how a muslim woman will likely receive something packaged as pro-freedom vs anti-Islam is vast. So, in both scenarios - give them a narrower chasm to jump, and they'll be more likely to try it. Have the religious person know that they can simply stop believing without becoming anti, and have the muslim woman know that she can abandon the veil without abandoning Islam.

 

[Scaff]

You wrote......



A conclusion on your thoughts and a conclusion on the subject matter are completely different things. It's "this is what I think" vs "this is how it is".

You wrote.....
Meaning - "I'm not willing to join an organisation based around something that does not exist". It's a conclusion on the subject matter, and while it's no doubt down to sloppy words rather than an actual active non-belief, it's the kind of thing that reinforces the misconception that atheists are all active non-believers, and it's the kind of thing that's often said as a dig that doesn't even really need to be there. Atheism, put forward in it's truest and simplest form would be a much more palatable proposition for people questioning their religious views. It's the middle ground that should, but too often doesn't exist in the reality of what they're presented with.

It's not merely semantics, it's semantics that really matter and make a difference to people.

So semantics is all you have then?

I note that you have not actually answered or addressed any of the points I raised and still continue to ignore the far more valid points in regard to what actually constitutes atheism.

I could be as rude and dismissive of religion as I want and it will still not change my position as an atheist, it will simply make me rude and dismissive.

It's my approach to valid evidence when presented that makes the difference between atheism and nontheism.

Now you are free to feel offence based on the words I use, but given that you are not me what you can't do is state that I should refer to myself as a nontheist . Given that you are in no position to state how I would use any evidence (and I am the only one in a position to do that), you have no mandate to make such an assumption.

 

[LeMansAid]

@Scaff I'm saying that concluding that deities only exist in the imagination is against atheism in it's purest form.

There's perhaps something of a mismatch in the way that you and I present ourselves. I feel that on various topics we may have agreed in principle while the words betrayed harmony. Perhaps we should steer clear of the antagonisation. I'll cop the blame for starting this one.

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff I'm saying that concluding that deities only exist in the imagination is against atheism in it's purest form.

Not if that conclusion has been reached based upon all of the evidence that is currently available and that one is willing to re-evaluate that based upon any new evidence that is presented.

There's perhaps something of a mismatch in the way that you and I present ourselves. I feel that on various topics we may have agreed in principle while the words betrayed harmony. Perhaps we should steer clear of the antagonisation. I'll cop the blame for starting this one.

In this case you seem to be expecting my posts to be caveat-ed with a disclaimer that "this is a conclusion reached based upon an analysis of all the available evidence and is open to re-evaluation subject to new data and evidence being presented", that's going to be a bit unwieldy however.

What was however the biggest problem was the presumption that you were in a position to state what my worldview was, rather than open up a discussion about it.

That the best evidence we have now in regard to the origins of all religions is that the are a series of myths and beliefs authored by humans, now given that an author has to have 'inspiration' to write its either divine intervention (i.e. writing down the word of god(s)), for which no evidence at all exists; or its a product of the authors own mind, which would make it a product of the imagination. The available evidence points to the latter, anyone able to provide evidence (of a standard above 'because I say so' or 'its written down') will cause that to warrant review.

That I am even open to new evidence precludes me being a non-theist, as much as Ken Ham's statement that no evidence could ever be provided to disprove god precludes him from being an atheist.

 

[Liquid]

Because Muslim country follow Islamic laws. Where are the Christian countries where the State controls the religion of Christians?

The United Kingdom is one of them; its upper chamber is the House of Lords Teporal and Spiritual; several bishops remain as permanent members. Additionally, alongside her many titles and roles, the Monarch of the United Kingdom is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The head of state is also the head of the state church.

There are plenty of countries with Christianity or a denomination of Christianity as their codified de jure state religion. Whether this is carried out de facto in practice where the religion is actually forced upon the people is another matter. That is a theocracy. Theocracies have, in history, not been exclusively Muslim. Neither have holy wars, for that matter.

What they desperately need is a separation of Church (or Mosque) and State which, in my opinion, would take a miracle to happen after they all teamed up and came up with the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.

I do not disagree with this. No religion should be a codified state or sovereign body whether it interferes with freedom of religion or whether it doesn't. Even in a country as moderate, progressive and untheocractic as the United Kingdom; on principle it should be abolished.

 

[Scaff]

@Liquid Ireland is a rather good example of how the state religion (Catholicism) has heavily influenced policy and as a result caused suffering and even death to ensure dogma dictates policy and law.

 

[Liquid]

Like I said, it's not exclusively an Islamic thing as kenny was so eager to ask be disproven. I think it was as late as 1995 when Catholicism was holding back abortion being legal in the Republic of Ireland?

 

[Scaff]

Like I said, it's not exclusively an Islamic thing as kenny was so eager to ask be disproven. I think it was as late as 1995 when Catholicism was holding back abortion being legal in the Republic of Ireland?

I think hold it back to this present day would be more accurate....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

....given the rather strict terms that apply and that it took the death of a non-Catholic in 2012 to even get that.

 

[Liquid]

I think hold it back to this present day would be more accurate....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

....given the rather strict terms that apply and that it took the death of a non-Catholic in 2012 to even get that.

Oh it's still illegal as a general practice? Man. I didn't think it had lasted this long. Not to digress too much from the separate abortion thread, quick research leads me to the eight amendment to the Irish constitution (1983)

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

And this is as a result of an interpretation of Christian law, not Islamic law. You have raised an excellent point in mentioning Ireland. With the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, you have two countries with a denomination of Christianity as the de jure state religion; Ireland recognises the ""special position" of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church" while the United Kingdom has, via the head of state, the aforementioned Supreme Govenor of the Church of England and Lords Spiritual.

The differing de facto practice in Ireland and Britain arguably demonstrates that the relationship between church and state, while being immoral in theory, is equally dependent on the degree of the application of theocratic principles as it is on the specific religion.

 

[kennylmao]

Like I said, it's not exclusively an Islamic thing as kenny was so eager to ask be disproven. I think it was as late as 1995 when Catholicism was holding back abortion being legal in the Republic of Ireland?

Thanks for the above post. Appreciate it. 👍

Do Christian countries forbid or criminalize apostasy, thus infringing the basic human right of freedom of religion, and if so how long ago was it?

 

[DK]

I think hold it back to this present day would be more accurate....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

....given the rather strict terms that apply and that it took the death of a non-Catholic in 2012 to even get that.

Yeah, and over the summer we had the "Miss Y" case, where an asylum seeker who became pregnant after being raped in her home country went on hunger strike to get an abortion, as she couldn't go to Britain (NI has slightly less strict abortion laws than the Republic) to get an abortion. She claimed she was suicidal, but was force-fed and forced to give birth via a C-section.

And to cap it off, today news has emerged of a woman who's ~17 weeks pregnant who is brain-dead but is being kept on life support because she's pregnant.

 

[Liquid]

Yeah, and over the summer we had the "Miss Y" case, where an asylum seeker who became pregnant after being raped in her home country went on hunger strike to get an abortion, as she couldn't go to Britain (NI has slightly less strict abortion laws than the Republic) to get an abortion. She claimed she was suicidal, but was force-fed and forced to give birth via a C-section.

Pardon my callousness but if she had been raped in her home country, why would she travel to, or seek refuge in, Ireland? Unless she didn't know about the abortion laws there. Or, of course, it was somehow just easier to get there than Great Britain. It's certainly not unheard of, though, for Irish women to hop over the water for abortions.

But to keep things on track regarding state religions and Islam, it is indisputable that there is a clear belt of countries with Islam as the codified, de jure state religion.

Green - Islam
Dark green - Sunni Islam
Light green - Shia Islam

Blue - Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Light blue - Catholicism
Dark blue - Protestantism

Yellow - Buddhism

But there are others. Even this graphic is slightly misleading in that several other countries constitutionally acknowledge Catholicism and give it special privileges such as Peru, Poland, Spain and, as discussed, Ireland.

 

[DK]

Pardon my callousness but if she had been raped in her home country, why would she travel to, or seek refuge in, Ireland? Unless she didn't know about the abortion laws there. Or, of course, it was somehow just easier to get there than Great Britain. It's certainly not unheard of, though, for Irish women to hop over the water for abortions.

But to keep things on track regarding state religions and Islam, it is indisputable that there is a clear belt of countries with Islam as the codified, de jure state religion.

Green - Islam
Dark green - Sunni Islam
Light green - Shia Islam

Blue - Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Light blue - Catholicism
Dark blue - Protestantism

Yellow - Buddhism

But there are others. Even this graphic is slightly misleading in that several other countries constitutionally acknowledge Catholicism and give it special privileges such as Peru, Poland, Spain and, as discussed, Ireland.

I'm guessing that like the vast majority of asylum seekers, she felt unsafe in her home country.

Technically, Ireland's constitution had a "special position" clause for the RCC up until January 1973, acknowledging it as the faith of the majority of Irish citizens. Even then, the RCC's influence on our government lingered on for over two decades afterwards.