Speak good of Muslims and those of any faith

[Kate]

Hey all,

Why not ?

Muslim as a faith was very tolerant of others in the past, from what I was told the religious wars in persia made it more extreme.

Most Christians and those of any faith are nicer people generally (exceptions exist).  This isnt a blanket truth but religion has gone a LONGER way for charity, and equality than pushes from the government or other politcal ideals (generally).  I believe the harder stances on them having any faith crystallizes fundamentalism "else = bad" ideology. I know claims of the "absolute truth/divine truth" is abrasive to many but I feel that if others were more matter of fact about those with religious believes focus on that aspect would be lessened.

[Caitlin]

No offense intended, but I will not censor myself and speak good of those who do bad. I have a friendly older neighbour who is muslim and muslim friends. Of them I would never speak bad, but that has more to do with the personality than the religion they practice.

Those who disrespect their fellow humanbeings by committing crimes that are against the laws of any civilised country, and use religion as an excuse to commit these crimes, should also expect their religion to be critisised. The same goes for those who wish to push their beliefs onto others, whether they be christian, muslim, hindu, jehova, etc. Freedom of speech and the liberty to believe what you want is a great right, but also one that should be respected equally. In recent years this is starting to conflict more and more.

To give another example, though the christian fate promotes love and understanding, it also promotes intolarance and unequal rights. If we speak good about such things then we're only fooling ourselves and not dealing with the problem that, in my mind, all people should be treated equal respect, which they currently aren't.

I'm not in favour of intentionally hurting the feelings of others, but I won't speak good either of any faith when its believers perform actions based on their religion that limit the freedom of others. For example, for muslims it's forbidden to drink alcohol, and I don't see anything wrong with that. What I do consider wrong is that those of another fate are also persecuted for violating muslim laws that aren't in violation with their own religious laws, or the laws of the country they live in.

I agree that in the end of the day the majority of the practitioners of any faith are friendly/ peaceful, but that doesn't mean that religion itself is good by default.

[Hemingway]

Talking about any religion, but in the current climate especially islam, is remarkably difficult. If you mention, for instance, that Theo van Gogh was murdered by a muslim for the crime of criticizing islam, you'll immediately have some people saying the murderer wasn't a muslim at all because no muslim could do such a thing, and others declaring that such is the punishment for blasphemy. Now, it's quite obvious that the latter group is the one that needs to be criticized. But if, in doing so, we have to take into account the feelings of the former group, it becomes very difficult.

There's much in the quran, and hadith, that's reprehensible and needs to be criticized. The same is true of the bible - both testaments of it.

I have nothing against any muslims simply because of their religion. I have something against a muslim I work with, because he does things like drink alcohol and eat pork but still becomes upset if someone mentions islam in a manner that's even slightly negative. I also have something against the people who, just a few days ago, gathered outside the US embassy here and declared their support for Bin Laden. Don't ask me how that makes sense anymore, though.

The bottom line - and this doesn't just apply to religion, but in all things - is that criticism is not a personal attack. If someone becomes offended because you point out some unpleasant fact about their religion, it's not because you've said something offensive or tried deliberately to offend them. If that offends them, then it's their religion that's offensive.

[Caitlin]

I couldn't agree more with you Hemingway. Personally I often found myself disagreeing with Theo van Gogh's views, but after he was murdered I saw that he was more right than wrong. He used a very confronting matter to spread his views, and I didn't really like that, but his views itself were very insightful.

The newspaper he used to write a column for printed nothing but emptiness on the day that he used to write his weekly column for up to a year afterwards. It wasn't something you got used to and served as a good reminder of just how intollerant some people can be.

Another thing is, (some) muslims feel very offended when you talk about their religion in a negative fashion, but are all hail and praise when another religion is discussed in a negative way. They view themselves as superior as that all others should bow to them. I'm not saying that all muslims are like that, but that's the idea I'm getting when watching mainstream media. Naturally they only show the extremeties and not the average muslim since they're not interesting to report about, but judging by the frequent newsreports there are a lot of extremists out there. I find that very threatening, and even more so now that people in the West are saying that we should give up our freedom of speech just to appease them.

[Teo Torriatte]

There are bad actors in any religion, though. Sure, its not as common for Christians to murder in the name of their faith, but it has happened, and people do other bad things in the name of that religion.

[Caitlin]

There are bad actors in any religion, though. Sure, its not as common for Christians to murder in the name of their faith, but it has happened, and people do other bad things in the name of that religion.

I beg your pardon? :p

It might not be these days, but I believe the christians are far worse sinners than the muslims were in past history when it came to religious murders. Heresy got many people killed during the dark ages and Spanish weren't exactly all that friendly either for the native Americans when they invaded South America. Either you converted to catholicism or you got a bullet in the head.

I won't even mention the holy wars and crusades to Jurusalem. Those wars were financed all the way up to chain by even the pope himself. Then again, the muslims, jews, hindus and other religions have done their fair share of religious killing in the past as well. In most recent history it's the extremists of the muslim countries that are starting to spark a war between East and West though. If Iran keeps going the way they are right now with their politics it could very well herald WW III within several years, and when it comes right down to it, religion is the cause of that conflict. :(

[Moraline]

My opinion has always been that anytime you bring a group of people together and preach that your faith is the one true faith you set up your followers to automatically think less of other people.

The definition of a religious faith is to preclude the belief in all others. The organization itself generates it's own sense of self-righteousness, no matter what the religious faith maybe.

It is good to believe in the tenets and philosophy of a religious faith that believes harming others is bad. It is, however, bad to believe that all others are bad because the religious faith that one follows tells you they are lost/inferior/or whatever.

Organized religion breeds organized hatred that stems from a dehumanizing belief that all others are lost by not following the religious path of the organization.

If one can look past the tenets of a faith, see the good in the philosophy and filter out the that part of the organization that believes all other are "doing it wrong," then you can find within the religious faith the core aspects of it's virtue.

The problems arise when you have leaders of an organization that looks down on all others.

No matter how noble, gentle or kind ones religious leaders maybe the very definition of their role as leader of the organization is that they must promote their religious faiths and tenets as being more virtuous then all others.

This act of leadership among the religious faiths and their struggle to promote it creates an atmosphere that fosters and inadvertently (in some cases) promotes zealotry, bigotry, and hatred.

I believe in the good of man-kind and I believe in the personal philosophy of harming none and helping others. I do however believe that religious faith does more harm then good when taken on a whole.

One on one individuals may find strength in the shared religious belief but the shared beliefs of people the world over has led to war, inquisitions, persecutions. All in the name of organized religion. It has even held back science for literally 100's if not 1000's of years. History is clear on these facts. If we need lists of them they can be provided but most are common knowledge.

So while I can speak well of any individual or even the basic philosophies of a religious faith. I can not speak well of organized religious faith in general.

[Caitlin]

I wholeheartedly agree with that view Moraline.

In my case I became atheist last year and the above are just one of the many reasons. Although my main reasons are different, the above did add to it. However, I don't want to take the discussion off topic either, so I'll leave it at this. :-)

[Teo Torriatte]

I beg your pardon? :p

It might not be these days, but I believe the christians are far worse sinners than the muslims were in past history when it came to religious murders. Heresy got many people killed during the dark ages and Spanish weren't exactly all that friendly either for the native Americans when they invaded South America. Either you converted to catholicism or you got a bullet in the head.

I won't even mention the holy wars and crusades to Jurusalem. Those wars were financed all the way up to chain by even the pope himself. Then again, the muslims, jews, hindus and other religions have done their fair share of religious killing in the past as well. In most recent history it's the extremists of the muslim countries that are starting to spark a war between East and West though. If Iran keeps going the way they are right now with their politics it could very well herald WW III within several years, and when it comes right down to it, religion is the cause of that conflict. :(

I meant in modern times, but since I didn't state that, your point is valid.

[ofDelusions]

I meant in modern times, but since I didn't state that, your point is valid.

Well I do not know the numbers when comparing amount of killing being done name of any religion, but people have been murdered in name of Christianity in the modern times.

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

[Stattick]

I think that there's some terrible stuff in the old testament of the bible. It can be incredibly misogynistic, anti-gay, among a lot of other problems (such as barring people from going to temple because they're disabled, considering bacon an abomination before The Lord, and The Lord commanding His People to commit total genocide including salting the earth and poisoning the wells of His enemies).

Sane faiths have tried to deal with the evil in the old testament. They've had some of the best minds in history working on these problems for centuries, and they've literally written thousands of pages of text in philosophy, logic, and theology to explain away those evil acts and create a logical and cohesive morality based on those texts. Some believe in that theology, and others think it's just a steaming pile of apologetics.

Now, these days, most Jews are pretty rational about this stuff. Most of them don't run around beating the drum of war and calling for the genocide of those that are dissimilar to them. There are a few, but as a group, I tend to give the Jews a pass. It also helps that they don't annoy me by knocking on my door and trying to get me to convert to their flavor of God. I cannot overstate how much their non-proselytizing attitude helps their cause in my book. It's quite a thing that they haven't killed thousands or millions of people trying to convert people by the sword like Christianity and Islam is wont to do. I digress...

The point is, that the majority of Christians, Muslims, and other faiths based off of the deeply flawed books of the God of Abraham are decent people. Most of them do not believe that it is okay to kill in the name of God. Most of them do not think it is okay to convert people by the point of the sword (or by the mussel of the assault rifle). But there are outliers. Fanatics. Fundamentalists that reject the centuries of theology that mitigates the evil in those books. People that take it literally when the book says that a woman who cheats on her husband (or gets raped) is to be stoned to death. People that take it literally when the book says that oral or anal sex is an abomination and that those that practice those acts are an abomination and should be stoned to death... actually, truth be told, very few people take that part literally, unless the acts are between a man and a man, or between a woman and a woman. You don't really see those people screaming to murder their neighbors who had sex during the wife's period, as it calls for in Leviticus.

It's the fundamentalism that's the problem. It's the zealotry, the xenophobia that's the problem. But Christians don't really speak out against the fringe crazies that rattle their swords and call for a war against gay people. Christians don't really try to quell the extreme fringe among them that say that a woman must always defer to her husband's better judgement, that she must always be obedient to him, and that he can hit her if she doesn't behave. Christians just put up with the radical fringe, not wanting to make themselves a target, letting the Westboro Baptist Churches of the world get away with murder, sometimes literally. Of course, Muslims have the same problems, the same tendencies, the same sorts of xenophobic douchebags in their midst. They don't really do or say anything about them either.

The problem here is hypocrisy. People won't confront the crazies in their own communities. Yet they expect the people that live half way across the world to be confronting the crazies in their religion. Now maybe if we focused on fixing ourselves, in excising the cancer of fundamentalism from the public arena, made it abundantly clear that decent people in our society WILL NOT tolerate the xenophobic bullshit, the misogynistic bullshit, or the anti-gay bullshit of the American Taliban, maybe then we'll have something positive to say to the Islamic world. Maybe then we can show them a better way. But until we've done that ourselves, well, you know what they say about people in glass houses throwing stones.

[Ironwolf85]

This turned into "good people buuuuuutttttttt......" really fast.

and FYI Stattick, myself and other christans here in the states, do tell those douchebags to shut the fuck up, and get called heritics for it. But that's not what you see on the television, afterall westbrorough makes better ratings than the texas students that stood up to them by forming a silent, stoic, human wall to protect a soldier's funeral from their protests.
More often "soft power" is exercised, as there have been too many splits, and if you bash those loons they'll just split farther away and ignore you. These are things like other churches refusing to have anything to do with them, or when they call upon their christan brothers to "join the fight against teh gays" nobody shows up.
N.H. passed a law allowing gay marrage, there were a handfull of protestors outside the state captial who of course opposed it on religious grounds.
Dispite the deep christan roots in N.H. these homophobes only rallied maybe 10-20 people, that's not including onlookers (maybe 30 if you count them), and the guy who turned a profit selling them food from a truck. Almost all of them were 50+

[Kate]

Any action or momentum in one direction typically is "against" an intention hoping for something else that could have happened instead,
for reasons just as good as deemed by others own set of views and values.

To me I guess "my leap of faith" is speaking / thinking good of everything loving everything, and with some luck its addictive,
a momentum shared enough which hopefully sees hard stances lessen or at least be less relevant in my life.

[Callie Del Noire]

I've spent something like a total of 3 months in the Gulf, mostly in Dubai and a bit in Bahrain. Of those 3 months I'd say nearly a month of it was during Ramadan, their high holy month, over 3 cruises with my first command.

Dubai is a fairly moderate state, with Islam rule not being the governmental rule (like Egypt, Turkey and Syria) and I was struck by the sense of charity I saw there. I am shamed to say that is not what I see during our holy month (like.. December). I try to point out to a LOT of people that the frothing at the mouth and brain fanatic isn't the real face of Islam.. it's folks like my classmate Ahmed (in A-school) and the folks I met in the Gulf, Philipino Muslims I worked with in the Navy and the folks I met in my time overseas.

I don't think we'll make any progress till we find ways to help the moderates. And that won't happen till we put aside the fear of the tribal or terrorist stereotype.

[Callie Del Noire]

So, Dark Clown, would it be okay for non-Christians to judge us by the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church or assume that we all move by the mandates of people like them?  Don't forget that the phrase 'kill them all and let god sort them out' came out of a Christian crusade.  Against a fringe segment of Christian faith.  And that it has been too long that we killed folks for being the wrong brand of Christian. Like in the last 30 years.

I know moderate Muslims of good conscience and your outlook on their faith, a brother faith of ours, sets the tone of no respect and no compromise. Do you expect to be accountable for the actions f the WBC, or Snake Handlers, or Fundntalist Latter Day Sainters?  Or to support Protestant vs Catholic violence in Northern Ireland?

[Oniya]

I think that the problems won't be solved until we stop assigning the labels to people we haven't even known for long enough to put in neat little boxes (and do we ever know someone for long enough to do that?).  So -


Speak good of PEOPLE and leave it at that.

[Caitlin]

Is there such a thing as a moderate Islamist?  I'm having a hard time belieiving it.  For a religion that demands the death of those who criticize their prophet, allows men to behead their wives, and demands women to have their entire bodies and faces covered (again, under pain of death), where does the moderation come in?

Actually, in defense of the islam, the quran nowhere states that the women have to cover their face. That's a custom that slipped in throughout the ages, but not a requirement of islam itself. It's the fundamentalists who demand it, but not an 'official' requirement. I also don't know how the general muslim feels about the sharia.

One of my muslim friends had a good laugh about a movie that rediculed the protests against showing the image of their prophet and shared it on FaceBook. I saw that he also has a lot of friends and family (all muslims) in his friendlist, so once again, I don't know how the average muslim feels about it, or even cares about it. I would think that if it was a huge issue for him then he wouldn't have put that on FB.

We also don't hear any protests coming from countries like Dubai, while countries that did protest heavily also have a whacked economy. In one case somebody who didn't want to join the protests, was accused of heresy and the public wanted his death. However, it turned out that he was a rich citizen that owned a lot of shops downtown and had threatened a week earlier to put out those who were months late with their payments of their shops. In that particular case the riots and public uproar was merely an excuse to get around having to pay him.

I also don't believe that many people even saw the movie that rediculed their faith. Any sane person could never take it serious. If they made a similar movie about Jesus then Christians would shrug at best and maybe feel slightly insulted, but the quality of that thing was so poor that it was more like a comedy.

In addition, in the country where they burned that ambassy the moderate public went out terrorist hunting and took out 2 of the radical organisations behind those attacks because they were fed up with then inciting public unrest. They demanded from their government that those organisations would get disarmed.

The problem I see is that fundamentalists give the religion as a whole a bad name. Before 9/11 I thought quite positive about islam and didn't have any issues with it, however, the last decade changed a lot.

[Denivar]

Is there such a thing as a moderate Islamist?  I'm having a hard time belieiving it.  For a religion that demands

What "moderate" usually means when it comes to a religion is someone who is not fundamentalist and literal about all the demands of that religion's holy book/historical teachings/core beliefs/etc.

Asking if it's possible to be moderate and then listing what the extremists do doesn't make much sense.

Do we really have to list out all the icky kinds of things the Christian Bible "demands"?

[Serephino]

I believe the intended point of this topic was to point out good qualities in Muslims because for a long time now the entire group has gotten a bad rap from the actions of a few.  People of any religion can become terrorists in the name of their faith as history has proved too many times to count.  Not all Muslims are bad people, and I agree it isn't fair to have them all bashed and put under a microscope.

I won't say that things haven't been crazy lately, but please, let's not be ignorant.  They didn't just up and start hating us out of nowhere.  I've seen others talk about goings on in Afghanistan a while ago, but I can't comment too much as I was too young to really remember details.  All I can comment on is recent stuff, and one needs to have a little perspective. 

I know a big tension point is Israel.  The US backs Israel.  This is land that was just up and taken from the Palestinians because, well, the Jews needed somewhere to go after WWII, and this book called the Bible says that plot of land was given to the Jews by God, so the US and a bunch of European nations decided they should have it back.  I don't think the Palestinians were consulted, and you know, that would piss me off too.  The whole religious hatred between the two is beyond stupid in my opinion because both stem from Abraham, but look at it this way...  You and your cousin have never gotten along, and to make matters worse, the rest of your family is on your cousin's side.  Would you have warm and fuzzy feelings about the rest of your family?

Then there is Afghanistan and Iraq now.  We had a reason to invade Afghanistan.  Iraq was because... who the hell knows...  Long story short, we invaded their country, killed a few thousand people, toppled their government, and told them they had to have a Democracy like us.  That isn't their culture.  Iraq was the birthplace of civilization.  They've had their own way of doing things for centuries, and yet, because we're bigger we have the right to tell them they have to live the way we want because it's better for us?  If, say, China decided to take over the US and told us we had to become Communist, would you have good things to say about the Chinese?

Last but not least, let's not forget how Muslims are being treated in this country.  They are being questioned and detained for no other reason than their religion.  While they're in the streets screaming for our blood, there are Americans all over this country saying we should just nuke them all and be done with it.  Always remember that when you point a finger, there are three pointing back at you.  Pick a country, religious group, political party, etc... and think for a minute about how you'd feel about them if they did to you even half of what we've done to Muslims.  The better question becomes why shouldn't they hate us?

The only way to fight against these terrorist groups is to stop proving them right.  Everything we've done they use as a weapon against us, and we've given them decades of good ammo.  All the fighting and the venom spitting needs to stop.  For every one whackjob there are probably ten Muslims that just want to live their lives in peace.  You just don't see those ten in the media because there isn't much of a story there.         

[Kate]

Although I don't expect an agreement on this topic I AM impressed with its general maturity.

Very interesting posts so far people, hearing others views on this does help :)

[Caitlin]

Well yeah, there isn't much point in yelling and name calling, is there? :P

We have enough of that in the rest of the world already, might as well have a sensible discussion here instead. ;D

In general we have a great and mature community in E though. :-)

[Sabby]

Speak good of religious people? How about I speak good of people until they prove they aren't worth good words :P Whatever religion it is they subscribe to I'll view as just that, a religion. I might be able to tell how likely it is this person is ugly inside based on what spiritual view they subscribe to, but even that is too flaky to rely on.

If someone says they're part of a religion where women are voiceless breeders who need to cover their face, I'm just going to take that into consideration until I actually hear them grumble about a woman expressing their opinion. Then again, they may be amazing folks.

If someone says they're a part of a religion where all are equal and knowledge and peace are above war and possessions, I'm just going to take that into consideration until I actually see them peacefully resolve a conflict and turn down flippant spending. Then again, they may be dickholes when you touch their things.

The point is, you really don't know. The religion is so unimportant to me on first impressions that I absolutely refuse to let it dictate my interactions with them. I'm of the opinion that most major religions are so fragmented and deeply settled into society that you don't even need to know what they're about to claim to be a part of it, and even if you do know the deal, it's just one of many mutually exclusive interpretations. Probably because they were written by many poorly educated people who never collaborated, and have been constantly misinterpreted, twisted, and badly translated ever since.

So when someone says they're a Muslim/Christian/Jew/Hindu/Buddhist/Pagan/Mormon/Satanist/Scientologist/Jedi/Druid/Pastafarian, you REALLY have no idea what that means. To let it dictate your next words is just stupid, and to make yourself 'nicer' on principle is even stupider. If they prove to not be bad people, what does it matter if the damning conversation was lifted from a book?

[Callie Del Noire]

And before we forget, all these protests are about a film made by a Coptic Christain posing as a Isreali Jew. Clearly HIS agenda wasn't all peace and love. Otherwise he wouldn't have edited the film, posed as someone else AND misrepresented its intent to the cast and crew.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Then there is Afghanistan and Iraq now.  We had a reason to invade Afghanistan.  Iraq was because... who the hell knows...

Oil.  Same reason we support the Saudis even though they're some of the worst religious nut-jobs on the planet.

As for "speaking good of Muslims," I speak good of people who do good and bad of people who do evil.  I don't believe anyone should be pigeon-holed because of their religion, but neither do I believe psychopathy and evil should be immune to criticism because they're part of a religion.

[Callie Del Noire]

Oil.  Same reason we support the Saudis even though they're some of the worst religious nut-jobs on the planet.

As for "speaking good of Muslims," I speak good of people who do good and bad of people who do evil.  I don't believe anyone should be pigeon-holed because of their religion, but neither do I believe psychopathy and evil should be immune to criticism because they're part of a religion.

don't forget that Saddam had put out a bounty on 'Dubya's' daddy during the first gulf war.

[OldSchoolGamer]

don't forget that Saddam had put out a bounty on 'Dubya's' daddy during the first gulf war.

I don't doubt that punishing an unfaithful vassal (Saddam Hussein) figured into the equation there.  But the main reason we're in Iraq is for the oil.  And make no mistake--we're still in Iraq up to our noses, regardless of what the corporate media here in the U.S. claim.  For starters, we built a highly fortified embassy compound the size of The Vatican.  We have mercenaries (i.e., Blackwater, or whatever name it goes by nowadays) providing security.  Same tactic the Roman Empire used in its declining days to hold on to as much as it could for as long as it could.

[Serephino]

My point was that there are two sides to every story.  A lot of Muslim countries are anti-American, but that is only because of the crap we've been pulling on them.  Men like Bin Laden were using that as leverage.  People go to such extremes when they feel they don't have any other choice.  The leaders of the Taliban are evil men that are taking advantage of desperate people.  Playing the blame game is a powerful tool.  The Nazi party pointed their fingers at the Jews, and look what happened...

I do agree that a person shouldn't be judged because of their religion.  I've known intelligent Christians that I could have a civil and insightful conversation with.  On the other hand, I've met a few that I wanted to smack upside the head with their precious Bible in the hopes I'd beat some sense into them.  I mean, seriously, Harry Potter promotes Satanism?  *headdesk*  The same goes for Pagans, and any other religion.  It's the individual person, and what they do with their chosen religion's teachings.  Unfortunately, Islam has been painted with a very large brush as being all bad, and there are lots of ignorant people out there who believe it without question.

I don't know anything about the movie in question, but I do know that when someone strongly believes in their faith, they don't take well to being insulted.  Add the insult to the powder keg that is the Middle East right now and what did the makers of this movie think was going to happen?  Heck, maybe that was even their goal, as sick as that might sound.  It proves them right, that Muslims are crazy and violent. 

And have we so quickly forgotten what are own American Christians have been doing?  The evil Satanist liberals want to allow gay marriage and force a poor Christian employer to offer health insurance that covers the devil's birth control.  Yep, some of the laws people want to pass go against Christian beliefs, so some of the more devout have been screaming religious discrimination.  Oh, yes, should I go work for Wendys I have no right to make that poor owner give me, a Pagan, birth control because it's against his beliefs.  I mean, my god is absolutely fine with it, and it would be me taking the birth control, but making him pay for it with the rest of the health insurance is trampling all over his religious freedom.  *sighs*     

[Callie Del Noire]

Let's do a quick count here..

Taliban.. Former US backed freedom fighters left bereft of funds for rebuilding their country after the evil wicked Russians were run out.
Bin Laden and his merry Men. Ditto.
Saddam.. backed by the US to combat 'evil Iran' rather than trying to work with the local countries to approach it another way.

Seeing a trend here? This is the fall out of Cold War 'barrier' diplomacy and broken promises. I'm surprised that some of the faction that the Syrian government hasn't tried to make a play. Take away money and leave these sort of men high and dry..they WILL turn on you.

We didn't restore a functional system in Afganistan (Charlie Wilson pushed for it but we the US was all 'Misson Accomplished) so along came the Taliban.. with guns, training and the willingness to put down anyone that opposed them. Duh.

Bin Laden lost power and standing.. so yeah, when it can time to kick us as a way to be the modern Saladin..he did it. Had he been a BIT smarter and gotten a country under his control, things would have been different.

Saddam wanted what a LOT of leaders in that part of the world wanted. A united Islamic state under his flag. Kuwait would have been the first of many. Jordan or some other gulf country would have been next.

As for us 'pulling out', of course we aren't completely done. Due to piss poor planning and even worse implementation we allowed some of the most radical elements of the Islamic world into Iraq. It will be DECADES before they are a democratically stable country, and without help from outside their borders (like us), there will be more blood.

To simply assume that the radical Islamists are the only ones out there is foolish, short sighted and denying the truth of things. We put the guns and money in their hands. Not this year, last year.. or the last decade but over the last half century or more. Read your history, and look at things. We had a hand in making the mess because it wasn't 'our country' and what wouldn't fly here was okay there.

I know a lot of followers of Mohammed, all told about 3 dozen or so not including the HUNDREDS I've met in service to my country. You want to fix the problem, look to support the ones who speak of peace. There are something like five to ten Ayotollahs who speak for tolerance and peace. (I think a few of them have died of old age in the last 2 years), why don't we hear about the suffering they and their families suffer? Or look for groups aside from Hammas and the Muslim Brotherhood who could lead the more moderate areas of teh secular Arab world?

We empower them by opposition and do damn little to empower others by supporting their more tolerant rivals.

This clusterfuck was the result of nearly 70 years of Western/Soviet barrier politics.. do you honestly think we could fix it in a handful of years?

Particularly considering we aren't looking for allies among the peacemakers.  I don't blame the moderates in the Gulf and Arab nations for laying low and keeping quiet. They are alone in their struggle.

[Kate]

"Particularly considering we aren't looking for allies among the peacemakers. "

Interesting quote,

Typically most government approaches is to empower the opposite of what annoys you most, but this only leads to the pendulum.

Empowering the workable balance that is moderate from the get go when faced with an extreme situations (ie whatever "the balance", not an extreme view)  ?
Not so easy in a democracy, as awkwardly you cant get votes from any that are "polar passionate" about the issue, and with "two party system" for democracy, shadow and elect (ie each the devils advocate almost as a principal), giving power and opportunities to those who are a workable balance would need an impressive Charismatic force behind it.

Wonder what happens when that or "love you anyway BEFORE you prove it, regardless of your beliefs or the past" does ?

[Callie Del Noire]

"Particularly considering we aren't looking for allies among the peacemakers. "

Interesting quote,

Typically most government approaches is to empower the opposite of what annoys you most, but this only leads to the pendulum.

Empowering the workable balance that is moderate from the get go when faced with an extreme situations (ie whatever "the balance", not an extreme view)  ?
Not so easy in a democracy, as awkwardly you cant get votes from any that are "polar passionate" about the issue, and with "two party system" for democracy, shadow and elect (ie each the devils advocate almost as a principal), giving power and opportunities to those who are a workable balance would need an impressive Charismatic force behind it.

Wonder what happens when that or "love you anyway BEFORE you prove it, regardless of your beliefs or the past" does ?

It's true.. we don't back the folks who want to be self-reliant and independent. They aren't the folks we back, we back people like Saddam and Anwar Sadat and the Shah of Iran. People interested in qenuine democracy and self determination like the moderate Ayatollahs I mentioned earlier..

For example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein-Ali_Montazeri

Ayotollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri pushed for rights for women, and civil rights. He got NO public disclosure here.

[Kate]

Feels no matter how good ones argument or reasons one has, it seems really hard to escape the "duality dance",  trying just makes you invisible and frustrated, if you wish to dance with others like you.

Tangent / semi-off topic

The awkward irony is (to one that only has a laymen grasp of history) is that those who "found another way out of the duality dance and was charismatic enough to gravitate a following" are main characters or founders of "religions", which inevitably are inflicted with their own internal duality schools of beliefs.

Interesting to hear those who know of exceptions, or enough about religious history or religions generally to correct this assertion,  like does Buddism have splits "duality schools" ? (I recall there was another splinter group that believed in another deli-lama (forgive the spelling), if so do they get along ? The reason why Buddhism I wanted to use as an example as I though it was one that attempted to escape "duality issues" or "objective meaning" and focused on the in-between states where one doesn't have vested interest in one side of a situation or another, and disassociates the "self" and intentions from experience, and developes meditation methods to do so etc

Hmm side issue though , if that doesnt interest many just ignore that rambling.

[Elias]

I think there are key differences between Muslims and the other faiths, Muhammad is the only religious leader who lead his faith from the point of a sword. I think that creates a very different outlook on faith then almost any other. Crimes have been committed in the name of peaceful faiths since the beginning of time but none have promoted violence like the Muslims do.

Jesus Christ died for our sins, he believed all people could be saved, Moses never engaged in violence himself to save his people, Buddha Gautama tossed away all possessions and discovered enlightenment, and the list goes on.

Muhammad alone believed in violence in the name of god and claims god supports violence for the sake of oneness no matter how many beautiful aspects exist in the Qur'an, I dont think it can remove that taint because it exists in the core of its faith. There are no less than 109 verses that call for war against non believers in their book of faith and while Christianty has violent verses its in historical or storytelling context the Quran does not have that, its open ended and preaches eternal war until all exists under their faiths banner.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Muhammad led his people too Mecca and he led them in war against the native peoples. HE did it, not a Muslim king but the prophet himself.

[Sabby]

Kid Jesus turned other kids into salty trees that would never bear fruit or leaves, struck men blind for trying to discipline him, and as an adult he chased people away from a market in his fathers home with a spurred whip. And your not going to find the first two in many modern Bibles >.>

I don't really know Muhammad's deal, but unless he's almost exclusively a sword swinging diety of vengeance and rule by might, then I don't think he's much different then Jesus. Just a collaborations of other peoples very different ideas of a fictional figure, being pruned over the years to not resemble a schizophrenic. 

[Oniya]

And your not going to find the first two in many modern Bibles >.>

Source, then?  You can't leave a bibliophile hanging like that.  :'(

[Sabby]

3. And the son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph; and he took a willow branch, and let out the waters which Jesus had collected. And Jesus, seeing what was done, was angry, and said to him: O wicked, impious, and foolish! What harm did the pools and the waters do to you? Behold, even now you shall be dried up like a tree, and you shall not bring forth either leaves, or root, or fruit. And straightway that boy was quite dried up. And Jesus departed, and went to Joseph's house. But the parents of the boy that had been dried up took him up, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph, and reproached him because, said they, you have such a child doing such things.

5. And Joseph called the child apart, and admonished Him, saying: Why do you do such things, and these people suffer, and hate us, and persecute us? And Jesus said: I know that these words of yours are not your own; nevertheless for your sake I will be silent; but they shall bear their punishment. And straightway those that accused Him were struck blind. And those who saw it were much afraid and in great perplexity, and said about Him: Every word which he spoke, whether good or bad, was an act, and became a wonder. And when they saw that Jesus had done such a thing, Joseph rose and took hold of His ear, and pulled it hard. And the child was very angry, and said to him: It is enough for you to seek, and not to find; and most certainly you have not done wisely. Do you not know that I am yours? Do not trouble me.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0846.htm

Muhammad probably has more prison tattoos (metaphorically) then Jesus, but my point was you can make them into idols of peace or fury if you want. That's the beauty of the Bible!

[Elias]

There are some (Anti religious factions) who believe Christ had a temper, but the difference here is huge. Christ may have lost his temper in between self sacrifices. Muhammad was a warlord.

[Sabby]

I'm not doubting you, but do you hear anyone claiming that? Nope. Islam is a religion of peace and knowledge and Muhammad was a psion of forgiveness and tolerance.

[Callie Del Noire]

There are some (Anti religious factions) who believe Christ had a temper, but the difference here is huge. Christ may have lost his temper in between self sacrifices. Muhammad was a warlord.

Actually there is a few books of the bible that were 'lost' over time because the material supported 'heritical' thought or ran counter to what the growing church wanted.

There is an entire book covering the life of Jesus as a child in Egypt.. (the kids being turned to trees and killing of one of his teachers if I recall rightly come from that.)

Even among the 'established' books of the Bible there are 'lost segments' that ran counter to early church dogma.

[Oniya]

I checked Sabby's link, and it claims to be the Gospel of Thomas.  I'm sure I've got a dead-tree book on the Gnostic Gospels around here somewhere - I'll see if I can correlate it. 

[Elias]

Actually there is a few books of the bible that were 'lost' over time because the material supported 'heritical' thought or ran counter to what the growing church wanted.

There is an entire book covering the life of Jesus as a child in Egypt.. (the kids being turned to trees and killing of one of his teachers if I recall rightly come from that.)

Even among the 'established' books of the Bible there are 'lost segments' that ran counter to early church dogma.

Those books were never lost, they were removed by force because they held gnostic leanings they hold no more weight than anything else and have just as much bias as any other aspect of the bible, what matters to me is the core of the faith and the core of the Christian faith is not ideals of violence.

[Sabby]

what matters to me is the core of the faith and the core of the Christian faith is not ideals of violence.

Not now, anyway... depends on who you talk to. If the Christian faith ever had a non-disputed messages, it's gone now.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Thomas the Israelite is the supposed author of those gospels.  From the sources I have seen on that particular gospel, the work was written in response to Christians wanting more miracles and “poof” out of their religion.  The work goes through various sections including many miracles, more than a lot of other works and is far more fantastical than the other gospels.  While a lot of conspiracy surrounds gospels removed from the printed Bible, sometimes they really were removed because they were not appropriate or part of the teachings of the Church.   While I do hate referencing Wiki, the information I have seen on a simple overview states the author was not even familiar with Jewish tradition. 

The Christian faith was built on ideals of peaceful protest and revolution.  Jesus is certainly a figure of peaceful revolt and non-violence throughout the gospels.  Certainly the message may become lost or muddled through leaders and politics, but the New Testament is definitely pointing toward a kinder and gentler God.  In fact one of the reasons Jesus was not accepted as the Messiah by the Jewish people was that he was not a warlord or marching at the head of an army.

[Elias]

Thomas the Israelite is the supposed author of those gospels.  From the sources I have seen on that particular gospel, the work was written in response to Christians wanting more miracles and “poof” out of their religion.  The work goes through various sections including many miracles, more than a lot of other works and is far more fantastical than the other gospels.  While a lot of conspiracy surrounds gospels removed from the printed Bible, sometimes they really were removed because they were not appropriate or part of the teachings of the Church.   While I do hate referencing Wiki, the information I have seen on a simple overview states the author was not even familiar with Jewish tradition. 

The Christian faith was built on ideals of peaceful protest and revolution.  Jesus is certainly a figure of peaceful revolt and non-violence throughout the gospels.  Certainly the message may become lost or muddled through leaders and politics, but the New Testament is definitely pointing toward a kinder and gentler God.  In fact one of the reasons Jesus was not accepted as the Messiah by the Jewish people was that he was not a warlord or marching at the head of an army.

Well said

[Callie Del Noire]

Those books were never lost, they were removed by force because they held gnostic leanings they hold no more weight than anything else and have just as much bias as any other aspect of the bible, what matters to me is the core of the faith and the core of the Christian faith is not ideals of violence.

"I bring not peace but a sword." Matthew 10:34.

And let's see.. at the time of the crusades the nations of Islam were fairly highly cultured nations who tolerated other faiths (generally prefering to tax them at higher rates than doing the things the Catholic Church did to Jews and others in their domans)

Don't tell me Christianity is a faith of peace, it's road is at LEAST as bloody as Islam's. And just as harsh on it's followers and opponents.

The old phrase.. 'Kill them all and let god sort them out?'. That came out of Christian on Christian violence. Albigensian Crusade if I recall.

[Sabby]

Plus The New Testament being nicer has never been true -.- Maybe a chiller Jesus, but God himself remains just as barbaric and egotistical, there's just more nice chapters to quote, which only make it more inconsistent.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. (Matthew 10:34–39 NASB)”

Jesus is talking about revolution.  Keep in mind that the type of death Jesus suffered was one reserved for traitors to the Roman Empire.  He was not charged with blasphemy, but with inciting a revolution.  Jesus was warning them, telling them that his message and path would not be easy.  He was telling them that they would come into conflict with their families.  I do not see him telling people to cut down others or kill people.

[Elias]

"I bring not peace but a sword." Matthew 10:34.

This quote is not referencing violence at all, its stating quite plainly that love must be for Christ (AKA:god) above all other things, if you read the whole passage the statement never references other faiths or a group of people but instead ones own family. Christ was never for violence. He never led an army he never supported the death of the Romans who took his life.

What you fail to realize is that any faith can be picked up by a dictator and used for evil. So can anything else. Christianity is born in the bosom of charity and self sacrifice. The Muslim faith is born in the blood of war.

Christian fault lies in the hands of man, Muslim faults lie in the hands of its core beliefs

[Sabby]

This quote is not referencing violence at all, its stating quite plainly that love must be for Christ (AKA:god) above all other things, if you read the whole passage the statement never references other faiths or a group of people but instead ones own family. Christ was never for violence. He never led an army he never supported the death of the Romans who took his life.

What you fail to realize is that any faith can be picked up by a dictator and used for evil. So can anything else. Christianity is born in the bosom of charity and self sacrifice. The Muslim faith is born in the blood of war.

Christian fault lies in the hands of man, Muslim faults lie in the hands of its core beliefs

So, a faith where we must blindly love God above all others, even at the cost of our own happiness and even our lives, is a morally sound religion twisted by humans, but Islam is just plain old wrong to the core?

Yeah, sounds great to me. I understand trying to weigh the two up to see where they're coming from, how they've diverged and changed and then compare them, but I really cannot take the 'one > other' argument seriously. Christianity might have more moral and right tidbits then Islam, and maybe it has a more consistent core to it, but is it a good belief to base your life off of? Hell no.

[Oniya]

The old phrase.. 'Kill them all and let god sort them out?'. That came out of Christian on Christian violence. Albigensian Crusade if I recall.

That's the one.  The quote has morphed from the original 'Kill them all. For the Lord knows them that are His,' but the sentiment is the same.

[Elias]

So, a faith where we must blindly love God above all others, even at the cost of our own happiness and even our lives, is a morally sound religion twisted by humans, but Islam is just plain old wrong to the core.

Of course it should be? Even if god is a figment of our imaginations our brief existence would be so much better, I mean selfishness, the belief that you and your family matter more than anything else is what causes all the evil in this world if more people sacrificed everything to achieve this purity. This would be a better place. The drive of god produces more charity than any other existence.

I doubt gods existence, but I will never doubt the good the belief in god does. Those are the people out there trying to save the world while we sit on our ass and judge the world.

[Elias]

That's the one.  The quote has morphed from the original 'Kill them all. For the Lord knows them that are His,' but the sentiment is the same.

If every quote from a madman or a crusader must be given merit does that mean that I have to hold the quotes of Stalin and Mao as the ideals of atheists? If so every Atheist should be wiped from the earth. Fact is violent men are violent men no matter what ideal or religion they choose to follow.

[Sabby]

Of course it should be? Even if god is a figment of our imaginations our brief existence would be so much better, I mean selfishness, the belief that you and your family matter more than anything else is what causes all the evil in this world if more people sacrificed everything to achieve this purity. This would be a better place. The drive of god produces more charity than any other existence.

I doubt gods existence, but I will never doubt the good the belief in god does. Those are the people out there trying to save the world while we sit on our ass and judge the world.

...

So, wanting a life for ourselves, to achieve and grow and love and prosper, is selfish, because all war and conflict are stemmed from personal needs? Ya know what, forget the hypothetical diety, lets make a machine! It will induce a coma and happy thoughts, and keep our bodies function from birth to old age, so we can spend the entirety of our lives in complete submission to our subconscious portrayal of God. Then we'll have achieved purity. And this will be a better world. No conflict, no pain, no misery, just a pure existence of peace.

And charity? Are you kidding me? The building that calls itself a state, has more money then most countries and won't pay taxes, and they are paragons of CHARITY? Ya know why I volunteer at a animal shelter? Because I believe in the cause, and my own moral compass demands I try and help. Why do I donate money to charitys whenever I can spare it and the jar is there? Because I know it's the right thing to do. Can I do more? YES. Do I? Not always. Do I want to do more? ABSOLUTELY. And who or what drives me to better myself and help others?

No one but my Godless self, and if you need an imaginary friend to tell you it's the right thing to do, you're no more a moral or good person then a plank of wood.

[Callie Del Noire]

And if I might be so daring.. a LOT of the radicial Islamic unrest comes out of the last 2 centuries fallout of European Imperialism.. and then the sudden absence of the same regulating forces that crushed the less radical groups in place before their 'colonization' phase. Of course that can't POSSIBLY be the fault of western imperialistic thought.

Indivigual outlook is a LOT more fluid and prone to change that ethnic/cultural memory. You've got groups who ARE still pissed about things that happened a hundred or more years ago.. and the economies in some of the areas are still reeling from impacts that happened decades ago. Did you know some portions of the South didn't even barely notice the great depression since they were still reconstructing their LOCAL economic structure from the civil war and opportunism of the reconstruction?

Or to use another example..the only reason Western Europe is as stable as it is TODAY is because of the Marshall plan at the end of the second world war. America did a LOT to literally rebuild industry in portions of Europe..

We reap what we sow..and a lot of radical Islmamic action comes out of Western (and Amercian) actions of the last 3/4s of a century. Have we proven to be understanding world neighbors? No. Have we done anything but prop up some of the nastiest and meanest bandits in the region? No. Did we make Isreal keep their treaty promises. No.

Now if you're a guy in a market place in the middle of an Arab state where you see the people in power getting more and more and you get less and less.. that old man with the long beard starts to make some sense after your child goes blind because the funds for medical treatment were leeched of by 'El Jefe's son/cousin/nephew' or you're from a tribe that killed his great-great-grandwhatever back in the day.

A lot of the issues that are masked in Radical Islam AREN'T. They are regional and ethnic issues going back CENTURIES.

[Elias]

And if I might be so daring.. a LOT of the radicial Islamic unrest comes out of the last 2 centuries fallout of European Imperialism.. and then the sudden absence of the same regulating forces that crushed the less radical groups in place before their 'colonization' phase. Of course that can't POSSIBLY be the fault of western imperialistic thought.

Indivigual outlook is a LOT more fluid and prone to change that ethnic/cultural memory. You've got groups who ARE still pissed about things that happened a hundred or more years ago.. and the economies in some of the areas are still reeling from impacts that happened decades ago. Did you know some portions of the South didn't even barely notice the great depression since they were still reconstructing their LOCAL economic structure from the civil war and opportunism of the reconstruction?

Or to use another example..the only reason Western Europe is as stable as it is TODAY is because of the Marshall plan at the end of the second world war. America did a LOT to literally rebuild industry in portions of Europe..

We reap what we sow..and a lot of radical Islmamic action comes out of Western (and Amercian) actions of the last 3/4s of a century. Have we proven to be understanding world neighbors? No. Have we done anything but prop up some of the nastiest and meanest bandits in the region? No. Did we make Isreal keep their treaty promises. No.

Now if you're a guy in a market place in the middle of an Arab state where you see the people in power getting more and more and you get less and less.. that old man with the long beard starts to make some sense after your child goes blind because the funds for medical treatment were leeched of by 'El Jefe's son/cousin/nephew' or you're from a tribe that killed his great-great-grandwhatever back in the day.

A lot of the issues that are masked in Radical Islam AREN'T. They are regional and ethnic issues going back CENTURIES.

I am not saying regional issues don't have an effect on the state of each individual country and their reaction to Isreal and the West in general. What I am saying is that the sword of Islam holds more weight for the use of violence and the spreading of violence among Muslims than anything else.

India was colonized robbed by British Imperialism, they dont act like the Muslim nations. You dont have Hindu's murdering people because one of their gods made it into a Simpsons sketch. You can blame anything you like for the state of the Middle East but that does not change the fact that their faith has core issues that will never disappear they are a violent religion while every other faith just has violent individuals.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The Islamic religion is actually responsible for much of the scientific advances we have today.  During the Dark Ages, trade with the Middle East resulted in much knowledge being moved in that direction.  Also the Byzantine Empire spread many libraries and knowledge into that portion of the population.  At one time Islam was extremely progressive in terms of science and discovery.  If not for them much of the knowledge would have been lost.  Advances in mathematics, astronomy and literature would have been burned to the ground.  To my knowledge, Islam as a religion is very forward thinking and equalitarian.

Callie, in my humble opinion, is correct that much of what is seen now stems from culture and response to outside influence.  People making use of religion to gather people together and unit them in a selfish cause.  The Cold War has left a massive scar over much of that region that people do not think about as they envision Russia and not the Middle East.  European imperialism, Western expansion and centuries of conflict all combine to create an extremely volatile situation.  Religion becomes a unifying factor and a pulpit from which to condemn others.  Much as Callie did with the quote from Matthew, it is easy to see how snipets can be bent to manipulate and confuse.

[Callie Del Noire]

The Islamic religion is actually responsible for much of the scientific advances we have today.  During the Dark Ages, trade with the Middle East resulted in much knowledge being moved in that direction.  Also the Byzantine Empire spread many libraries and knowledge into that portion of the population.  At one time Islam was extremely progressive in terms of science and discovery.  If not for them much of the knowledge would have been lost.  Advances in mathematics, astronomy and literature would have been burned to the ground.  To my knowledge, Islam as a religion is very forward thinking and equalitarian.

Callie, in my humble opinion, is correct that much of what is seen now stems from culture and response to outside influence.  People making use of religion to gather people together and unit them in a selfish cause.  The Cold War has left a massive scar over much of that region that people do not think about as they envision Russia and not the Middle East.  European imperialism, Western expansion and centuries of conflict all combine to create an extremely volatile situation.  Religion becomes a unifying factor and a pulpit from which to condemn others.  Much as Callie did with the quote from Matthew, it is easy to see how snipets can be bent to manipulate and confuse.

Let's see.. the Byzantines built on Indian mathematics to come up with Calculus, Algebra and statistics. They were among the first to experiment with antibiotics (brought back by the knights returning from crusades), Banking (they introduced the templars to the concept of checking), such practices as making plaster casts and some of the rudiments of astronomy that would later get Galileo into so much trouble with the church.

A LOT of early western cultural and scientiific thought that came out of the Renaissance came out of the loot of the Crusades. That's right.. the LOOT of the Crusades. Byzantium and other cities were burned, pillaged and looted by 'righteous' Christians and brought back the fuel for future developments in the west..

Then later the decedants of those crusaders came back and did it again. The English and French as well as others. And they were not to kind to the folks in power when they arrived. So you had traditions and leadership that were modern and moderate get put to the sword for a century.. (not that the Ottomans didn't run over parts of Eastern and Central Europe. )

And the India argument doesn't hold water.. because they had a strong centralizing figure, Gandhi, who did an AMAZING job of building Modern Indian out of the mess that the English left them. As it is.. there is still some serious issues between the Pakistani and Indian nations..why? A lot people got forcably relocated back and forth because they were Hindi or Muslim in the wrong area.

[Elias]

The Islamic religion is actually responsible for much of the scientific advances we have today.  During the Dark Ages, trade with the Middle East resulted in much knowledge being moved in that direction.  Also the Byzantine Empire spread many libraries and knowledge into that portion of the population.  At one time Islam was extremely progressive in terms of science and discovery.  If not for them much of the knowledge would have been lost.  Advances in mathematics, astronomy and literature would have been burned to the ground.  To my knowledge, Islam as a religion is very forward thinking and equalitarian.

Callie, in my humble opinion, is correct that much of what is seen now stems from culture and response to outside influence.  People making use of religion to gather people together and unit them in a selfish cause.  The Cold War has left a massive scar over much of that region that people do not think about as they envision Russia and not the Middle East.  European imperialism, Western expansion and centuries of conflict all combine to create an extremely volatile situation.  Religion becomes a unifying factor and a pulpit from which to condemn others.  Much as Callie did with the quote from Matthew, it is easy to see how snipets can be bent to manipulate and confuse.

I would argue that many of those cultural advances in the Middle East belonged to the Orthodox Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire (That later became Byzantium) the Middle East and Muslims simply benefited from Geography they had China and India to the East and all the secrets of Rome to the West and gained a great deal from these 2 regions and this may have moderated the Muslim peoples but as you see historically the rise of fanatical Muslims from the Central Africa which conquered Spanish Muslims and Christians alike violence remained the focal point of their faith.

[Oniya]

Let's see - algebra, from Arabic al jebr "reunion of broken parts," as in computation, used 9c. by Baghdad mathematician Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi as the title of his famous treatise on equations ("Kitab al-Jabr w'al-Muqabala" "Rules of Reintegration and Reduction"), which also introduced Arabic numerals to the West. The accent shifted 17c. from second syllable to first. The word was used in English 15c.-16c. to mean "bone-setting," probably from Arab medical men in Spain.

al-Battani (850–922) was an astronomer who accurately determined the length of the solar year. He contributed to numeric tables, such as the Tables of Toledo, used by astronomers to predict the movements of the sun, moon and planets across the sky. Some of Battani's astronomic tables were later used by Copernicus.

ibn al-Nafis (1213–1288) was a physician who was born in Damascus and practiced medicine as head physician at the al-Mansuri hospital in Cairo. He wrote an influential book on medicine, believed to have replaced ibn-Sina's Canon in the Islamic world – if not Europe. He wrote important commentaries on Galen and ibn-Sina's works. One of these commentaries was discovered in 1924, and yielded a description of pulmonary transit, the circulation of blood from the right to left ventricles of the heart through the lungs.

There was also the use of antiseptics and anesthesia (usually opiate-based) during surgery.  There is even documentation of female surgeons as early as the 15th century.

Compared to the Europeans of the same era?  No contest.

[Callie Del Noire]

I would argue that many of those cultural advances in the Middle East belonged to the Orthodox Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire (That later became Byzantium) the Middle East and Muslims simply benefited from Geography they had China and India to the East and all the secrets of Rome to the West and gained a great deal from these 2 regions and this may have moderated the Muslim peoples but as you see historically the rise of fanatical Muslims from the Central Africa which conquered Spanish Muslims and Christians alike violence remained the focal point of their faith.

Could you possibly tar so much history and geography with a larger brush?

[Elias]

And the India argument doesn't hold water.. because they had a strong centralizing figure, Gandhi, who did an AMAZING job of building Modern Indian out of the mess that the English left them. As it is.. there is still some serious issues between the Pakistani and Indian nations..why? A lot people got forcably relocated back and forth because they were Hindi or Muslim in the wrong area.

I disagree.

Ghandi is responsible solely for independence, he freed India from occupation but Ghandi realized too late that his followers were more interested in personal power than unity he didn't want to see the creation of Pakistan, he wanted Christians, Hindus and Muslims under one nation all equal his own followers did it against his will. Hindus were just as mistreated by colonialism and guaranteed an enemy in Pakistan BY said Colonialism and still do not act like the Muslim nations do.

Stanley Wolpert has argued, The "plan to carve up British India was never approved of or accepted by Gandhi...who realised too late that his closest comrades and disciples were more interested in power than principle, and that his own vision had long been clouded by the illusion that the struggle he led for India's freedom was a nonviolent one."

[Callie Del Noire]

al-Battani (850–922) was an astronomer who accurately determined the length of the solar year. He contributed to numeric tables, such as the Tables of Toledo, used by astronomers to predict the movements of the sun, moon and planets across the sky. Some of Battani's astronomic tables were later used by Copernicus.

How about this comparison (given this is a far back as I can trace my family in Europe) my ANCESTORS at this time were raiding the shores of Western Europe and the British Isles. Raping, burning and pillaging. I have ONE ancestor from that era whose accomplishment was to be born in Iceland and die in Dublin, Ireland at that period of time

[Callie Del Noire]

I disagree.

Ghandi is responsible solely for independence, he freed India from occupation but Ghandi realized too late that his followers were more interested in personal power than unity he didn't want to see the creation of Pakistan, he wanted Christians, Hindus and Muslims under one nation all equal his own followers did it against his will. Hindus were just as mistreated by colonialism and guaranteed an enemy in Pakistan BY said Colonialism and still do not act like the Muslim nations do.

Stanley Wolpert has argued, The "plan to carve up British India was never approved of or accepted by Gandhi...who realised too late that his closest comrades and disciples were more interested in power than principle, and that his own vision had long been clouded by the illusion that the struggle he led for India's freedom was a nonviolent one."

So, you're saying that because his PERSONAL goals were failure that I am wrong in saying that his leadership had NOTHING to do with a more stable India than it would have been without him?

[Elias]

So, you're saying that because his PERSONAL goals were failure that I am wrong in saying that his leadership had NOTHING to do with a more stable India than it would have been without him?

What I am saying is that the goal of a stable India was never reached they still are dealing with a great many problems the people who took control using Gandhi's banner did not do what Gandhi believed was best. So I would argue that your argument that India isn't acting with the same violence as the Middle East because of Gandhi's hard work is wrong.

[Elias]

Let's see - algebra, from Arabic al jebr "reunion of broken parts," as in computation, used 9c. by Baghdad mathematician Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi as the title of his famous treatise on equations ("Kitab al-Jabr w'al-Muqabala" "Rules of Reintegration and Reduction"), which also introduced Arabic numerals to the West. The accent shifted 17c. from second syllable to first. The word was used in English 15c.-16c. to mean "bone-setting," probably from Arab medical men in Spain.

al-Battani (850–922) was an astronomer who accurately determined the length of the solar year. He contributed to numeric tables, such as the Tables of Toledo, used by astronomers to predict the movements of the sun, moon and planets across the sky. Some of Battani's astronomic tables were later used by Copernicus.

ibn al-Nafis (1213–1288) was a physician who was born in Damascus and practiced medicine as head physician at the al-Mansuri hospital in Cairo. He wrote an influential book on medicine, believed to have replaced ibn-Sina's Canon in the Islamic world – if not Europe. He wrote important commentaries on Galen and ibn-Sina's works. One of these commentaries was discovered in 1924, and yielded a description of pulmonary transit, the circulation of blood from the right to left ventricles of the heart through the lungs.

There was also the use of antiseptics and anesthesia (usually opiate-based) during surgery.  There is even documentation of female surgeons as early as the 15th century.

Compared to the Europeans of the same era?  No contest.

Yes. Western Europe compared to the Middle East was barbaric. What I am saying is that the enlightened state of the Middle East is not due to Middle East innovation but the innovation of Asia (China and India) AND the remnants of Rome in Byzantium. They gained most from the trade lanes that moved through those regions.

They acted much as Western Europe did after they brought back their "Pillaged" knowledge.

[Callie Del Noire]

What I am saying is that the goal of a stable India was never reached they still are dealing with a great many problems the people who took control using Gandhi's banner did not do what Gandhi believed was best. So I would argue that your argument that India isn't acting with the same violence as the Middle East because of Gandhi's hard work is wrong.

You're entitled to your opinion. I doubt that India would be as big, or stable, if it had been allowed to disintegrate into the dozens (or more) fiefs that it had been before the English came along. Gandhi did a lot in creating a large enough consensus AT the time they got free of English rule, to keep the country together. For all his mistakes and perceived failures (and I was aware of his status on Pakistan.. but then I also feel the Brits sold the same land to 2 groups in Isreal) he DID have a MAJOR factor in setting up the structure of the national government. Without him at the helm, I doubt there would be ONE India today.

[Callie Del Noire]

Yes. Western Europe compared to the Middle East was barbaric. What I am saying is that the enlightened state of the Middle East is not due to Middle East innovation but the innovation of Asia (China and India) AND the remnants of Rome in Byzantium. They gained most from the trade lanes that moved through those regions.

They acted much as Western Europe did after they brought back their "Pillaged" knowledge.

So, following your logic, we can't credit anyone in the Renaissance with 'discovering' anything because they 'merely' extrapolated from the resources on hand? That were brought in from the Crusades, which were in turn only brought to the Middle east due to traffic from India and China. You are casually brushing aside how these ISLAMIC scholars built on what was brought to them.

[Stattick]

If every quote from a madman or a crusader must be given merit does that mean that I have to hold the quotes of Stalin and Mao as the ideals of atheists? If so every Atheist should be wiped from the earth. Fact is violent men are violent men no matter what ideal or religion they choose to follow.

Lack of belief, as in atheism, is NOT equivalent to belief. Atheists aren't members of a club. They don't hang out together. They don't have common beliefs. They don't have common leadership. Equating atheism to a religion is a logical fallacy. It's like trying to claim that everyone with brown hair has the same belief system.

[Stattick]

Christian fault lies in the hands of man, Muslim faults lie in the hands of its core beliefs

That's the exact opposite of what Islam says of Christianity, that Muslim fault lies in the hands of man, and that Christian fault lie in a faulty religion. Obviously, both cannot be right. One of the claims must be wrong. Personally, I think it is that both of the claims are wrong. Both of the religions are deeply flawed. A progressive reading of them, with proper theology, and sane clergy, can lead to a good, peaceful religion. A fundamentalist reading of either, with evil clergy, can lead to violence.

[Sabby]

Lack of belief, as in atheism, is NOT equivalent to belief. Atheists aren't members of a club. They don't hang out together. They don't have common beliefs. They don't have common leadership. Equating atheism to a religion is a logical fallacy. It's like trying to claim that everyone with brown hair has the same belief system.

Sadly, that part isn't so true any more -.- What with the conventions and groups popping up over the last few years. I know it sounds silly to have gatherings and organizations of 'doubt', but when the debate is "Which is less barbaric? Muslim or Christianity?" can you really blame us for stepping up and saying wtf in unison? :P

[Callie Del Noire]

That's the exact opposite of what Islam says of Christianity, that Muslim fault lies in the hands of man, and that Christian fault lie in a faulty religion. Obviously, both cannot be right. One of the claims must be wrong. Personally, I think it is that both of the claims are wrong. Both of the religions are deeply flawed. A progressive reading of them, with proper theology, and sane clergy, can lead to a good, peaceful religion. A fundamentalist reading of either, with evil clergy, can lead to violence.

And has. All you have to do is look at the Crusades in the distant past. Western Europe looked for an excuse to raid the Middle East.. 'Securing' the holy land and such.. and the terrrorism of today from the other side.

Both faiths have preached a lot of good.. and done a lot of evil. To color one faith as 'irredeemable' is wrong. Most of the Muslims I PERSONALLY are conflicted.. they feel ashamed of the radicals using THEIR faith as justification for what THEY PERSONALLY see as evil, but they also feel persecuted by Christians in this country. And you know what.. seeing some of the STUPIDITY done here.. I agree.

You don't meet evil with evil ..and too often in these last 10 years.. we've let FEAR guide our decisions when it shouldn't have. 9/11 was terrible. I grew up in the Republic of Ireland during one particularly nasty bombing campaign in Northern Ireland and the UK. (1979 to 1982). I don't always like what the Brits did in response to the bombings.. but they knew the difference between being AFRAID of the IRA and others.. and FEARING them.

The US hasn't learned that vital difference yet. 

[Stattick]

I am not saying regional issues don't have an effect on the state of each individual country and their reaction to Isreal and the West in general. What I am saying is that the sword of Islam holds more weight for the use of violence and the spreading of violence among Muslims than anything else.

India was colonized robbed by British Imperialism, they dont act like the Muslim nations. You dont have Hindu's murdering people because one of their gods made it into a Simpsons sketch. You can blame anything you like for the state of the Middle East but that does not change the fact that their faith has core issues that will never disappear they are a violent religion while every other faith just has violent individuals.

I think you're a bigot and a troll. I'm not sure why your posts are being tolerated by staff.

[Ironwolf85]

wow... Elias, Callie, interisting debate, though you kinda can't argue with her Elias. You are putting your opinion and viewpoint before you do the research, and this kind of taints your research.
Also you are doing more harm than good to your platform by getting your research from an outdated highschool history book, (I found a british one from the 70's oooooo you should have seen when they got to Karl marx) and the internet.

poking fun at people aside... she is right.

to put forth my persional opinion after all those researchy bits I've done, and tried to keep any idological taint out of it... and it's goo this hasn't turned into a"I'm right and everyone else is a moron" circle jerk between people of various religious opinions, they had one of those on nationstates recently, the trolling was so bad as to make one cringe.

In my persional opinion I find faith a good thing, as it leads others into unselfish actions, and has inspired some of the most beautiful peices of art, litature, and deep thought in mankind's history.

By the same tolken it turns sour, just like everything else, when it comes into contact with pettyness, narromindedness, and good ol' ignorance. It does however not create these things.

Raise me a Mideval Ghetto, I'll raise you a Soviet death camp, Raise me a book burning I'll raise you mass media censorship. Point out torquamada as an example of christianity, I'll raise you pol-pot as an example of athiesim.
Likewise raise me a scientist or a poet, and I'll raise you one of mine.

Humans are both the most brillaint, and the most insane, beings on this planet.
I think for now, our brilliance has trumped our madness, and the moment it was proven was duing the cold war and the cuban crisis, when we were inches away from destroying the world.

That said, we enlightened apes still howel, still pound our chests, still beat our fists, and hump our wives.


On the Issue of Christanity VS Islam in the base facts (taking out the morons being morons with idology)

Christanity on the whole believes that jesus christ is the son of god, and believes in his teachings. that is, that he taught people to live , pure and peaceful life, and forgive their enemies, and act in a selfless manner. This when combined with acceptence of god's love for you, leads one to understanding, selflessness, and inner peace.

Islam on the whole believes that Mohammed was the last prophet of god, and thus his writing the Koran is seen as the final word of god laid bare these are the seven pillars of islam. Islam means "submission" in that one submits to the word and will of god, in order to acheve inner peace, understanding, and pure selflessness.

The goals of the two are the same, but there is a lot of bad blood and like any old fued everyone is guilty and bloodstained.

Their doctrinal conflict is thus:
To Christans: Muslims refuse to accept Jesus as son of god, instead they believe him to be a prophet.
To Muslims: Christans refuse the wisdom of the koran, and even deny that Mohammed is a prophet.

[Sabby]

Just curious, what kind of faith do you find good? Because I've always known the word to mean 'belief without evidence', but that don't inspire works of art. So I'm curious of what you mean by that :)

[Beguile's Mistress]

As individuals we have a responsibility to view the individual with an objective eye.  Adherence to a faith or not, belief in god or not, belief there is a go or not, and acceptance of any proven method of spreading our own personal gospel aside the value of a person resides with them and how they act no matter what organizations they belong too.

I don't care what you believe as long as you use your faith for good and let me live my faith in peace.  People make war and people harm and kill.  I have friends who are muslim among many other things.  They are open minded, giving people and I accept them as such.  I have friends who are Atheists (of many varieties), Christians (of many faiths) and Jews (of each level of orthodoxy) and have no problem with the person they are or the way they practice their religion.

[Stattick]

Just curious, what kind of faith do you find good? Because I've always known the word to mean 'belief without evidence', but that don't inspire works of art. So I'm curious of what you mean by that :)

I'm not the best to ask about this, since I generally dislike the Abrahamic religions. I've mellowed a lot over the last few years, and have been brought to understanding that what I thought of as problems by ALL of the Abrahamic faiths are problems only in some of the fundamentalist sects of those religions. For instance, there are plenty of varieties of Christianity where women are not considered to be second class citizens. They're allowed into the clergy. People are allowed to divorce. Gays and lesbians are afforded the same warmth and welcome as heteros, and are not made to feel shamed or different for being attracted to members of their own sex. There are Christians who fight for gay rights, march with them, believe in birth control, and believe in science. I'm far less familiar with Islam, but I'm sure that there are equivalents there too.

Additionally, there are plenty of denominations that give charity to others, running soup kitchens, shelters, giving food to the hungry, toys to poor kids at Christmas, raising money for medical research, and so forth. There's plenty of good that can come from religion. You just need to research and make sure that the religious organization that you're donating time or money to matches your beliefs and don't espouse beliefs that you find vile. Or, if you don't want to do the research or don't have time for it, you can always donate to a secular group that doesn't have that religious baggage.

Other than that though, I'll let others that have a less biased view than I, that are more familiar with the good that these religions have done speak up.

[Sabby]

That was actually directed to Ironwolf ^^' He mentioned he thinks faith is a good thing, and I was curious if he could elaborate. But thank you for that regardless.

As for my own opinion, I find it kind of sad that we attribute the good deeds of religious people to their faith. Kind of robs them of their worth in my eyes. Is it too much to say that good people do good things? Should we defend religion because there are very nice people out there who do nice things in the name of their God? I don't think so. Not a single one of those people would change if religion never came into their lives. They would still be good people.

And if any of them did revert to bastards if religion were not in their lives, then I guess they were just earning browny points to avoid Hell, and you can never convince me that's a good thing.

[Callie Del Noire]

As individuals we have a responsibility to view the individual with an objective eye.  Adherence to a faith or not, belief in god or not, belief there is a go or not, and acceptance of any proven method of spreading our own personal gospel aside the value of a person resides with them and how they act no matter what organizations they belong too.

I don't care what you believe as long as you use your faith for good and let me live my faith in peace.  People make war and people harm and kill.  I have friends who are muslim among many other things.  They are open minded, giving people and I accept them as such.  I have friends who are Atheists (of many varieties), Christians (of many faiths) and Jews (of each level of orthodoxy) and have no problem with the person they are or the way they practice their religion.

Thank you.. better put than I can. I know a LOT of people .. of MANY faiths. I refuse to let the brush of an attitude towards one faith (or anything else) color how I treat them and the people of that faith I've yet to meet.

Let fear guide my attitude does them a great disservice towards them..and lessens my own ability to be responsible for my actions.

You know what I have had to live with my whole life oversears? The 'Ugly American' tourist. Most of the time, unless I speak (I have a very very thick carolina accent with a little georgia burr) you can't spot me in the crowd in Europe. I like wearing what the locals wear and aside from my Navy Reg haircut I tended to look like most folks.

I said please, thiank you.. asked folks what they would suggest to try. Asked about what it was. Tried it. Enjoyed it. We are all people of this world, we have to find ways to get along. Too many folks today are trying to divide us. Why can't we find something in others we like. I miss this AWESOME Iranian resturant in Dubai. (I had never had goat before that place). It was about 4 blocks north of the Gold Souk.

I try to respect the people I deal with, I treat them with dignity and politeness because I want them to do the same. I walked many streets in my countries, and despite the diffrences of clothing, culture and language and style I saw folks trying to get by, raise their families and improve their lot in life.

I have seen folk talk about the 'good times' and 'bad times' back home. I talked with the folks that ran the resturant, and I could see it clear in their face why they were in Dubai. For their family. I've talked with a guy who walked HUNDREDS of miles with his birth certificate to get to the US from Somolia.. so he could one day bring his mother and father to the states. I sat with a man and watched him pray during Ramanda while driving us around. He spoke good english and showed me the nicest little coffee shop as soon as the sun went down. I spoke with a Spanish muslim who told me of the time and trials his family had suffered in the south of Spain, but spoke with pride of being a Spaniard. He pointed to a castle. "My family built that."

They aren't bad guys..they are just normal folks. They were happy to explain their faith to me when and if I asked, they didn't push it on me (unlike some fundamental Christians I have known who tried to 'save me' at every discussion). They appreciated my respect of their ways, and respected mine (though I'm a poor christian at best.. too many years in Ireland seeing sectarian violence).

These are the majority. People like you and I who do what they have to get by. They aren't looking for 72 virgins in the afterlife or forcing their ways on another, but simple folks trying to raise families and keeping their heads down from the men who have the guns and taken their lands from them or pushed them out of them.

The man with the bomb ISN'T Islam. No more than the small family church picketing the fallen soldier's funerals and mocking their families are Christian.

[Ironwolf85]

Just curious, what kind of faith do you find good? Because I've always known the word to mean 'belief without evidence', but that don't inspire works of art. So I'm curious of what you mean by that :)

You see sabby I can think of no other way to explain what I mean quickly than to call it faith...

But what I mean, in total, non clipped version...

Faith that existence has a purpose, something that cannot be proven, or disproven. That man can reach a form of inner peace, and understanding, and thus come into harmony with both his fellow man, and the entire universe around him.

"Religion" to me is a manmade doctrinal concept, and not nessary for faith, if it helps you think... go ahead... but not nessary.

When I say there is a diffrence between "Faith" and "Religion" that is what I mean, but try saying that outside church or philophy class without people saying you need medication...

also *claps* thanks for that Statick

also I can't seem to post because you guys keep posting! XD

[Sabby]

You see sabby I can think of no other way to explain what I mean quickly than to call it faith...

But what I mean, in total, non clipped version...

Faith that existence has a purpose, something that cannot be proven, or disproven. That man can reach a form of inner peace, and understanding, and thus come into harmony with both his fellow man, and the entire universe around him.

"Religion" to me is a manmade doctrinal concept, and not nessary for faith, if it helps you think... go ahead... but not nessary.

When I say there is a diffrence between "Faith" and "Religion" that is what I mean, but try saying that outside church or philophy class without people saying you need medication...

also *claps* thanks for that Statick

also I can't seem to post because you guys keep posting! XD

I think you need a different word then. Such a lovely concept deserves a less ugly word :) I'd say spiritualism, but that's far too vague and carries too much hyperbole. It's almost as undeservedly held up in society as faith, just a word that makes people feel good.

[Ironwolf85]

I think you need a different word then. Such a lovely concept deserves a less ugly word :) I'd say spiritualism, but that's far too vague and carries too much hyperbole. It's almost as undeservedly held up in society as faith, just a word that makes people feel good.

Exactly... I don't know what to call it.

I don't care what someone's religion is, I'm a christan but so long as someone has this kind of faith, I could care less what doctrine they get there by.
if I said enlightenment I'd sound like some mystic...

even then I don't hate people who don't have this kinda "faith" I just kinda feel sorry and try to be nice

[Beguile's Mistress]

Thank you.. better put than I can. I know a LOT of people .. of MANY faiths. I refuse to let the brush of an attitude towards one faith (or anything else) color how I treat them and the people of that faith I've yet to meet.

You're welcome.

My feelings about this are based on something I heard when I was a child from a visiting minister at my grandparent's church.  I've been looking for most of the day for something to explain my attitude.  This is the closest I could come but I'll keep looking.

Am exerpt from that page:

In his book "Civilization of the Arabs," Dr. Gustav LeBon says, "The reader will find, in my treatment of the Arabs' conquests and the reason of their victories, that force was never a factor in the spread of the Koranic teachings, and that the Arabs left those they had subdued free to exercise their religious beliefs. If it happened that some Christian peoples embraced Islam and adopted Arabic as their language, it was mainly due to the various kinds of justice on the part of the Arab victors, with the like of which the non-Moslems were not acquainted. It was also due to the tolerance and leniency of Islam, which was unknown to the other religions."

Islam is not a culture or religion that only teaches or promotes violence.  The fundamentalism and violence are a result of factors that sought to destroy what was once one of the most tolerant peoples in existence.

[Stattick]

I don't have a problem with people talking about faith. Faith is simply a belief based on emotion instead of evidence. There can be evidence in support or against the faith that someone has.

For instance, some people have faith that most people, when you really get down to it, are basically good. Others have faith that people are pretty much selfish. There is some evidence that can support either position.

Spirituality is a different thing. It's a belief that there's more to life than just droll existence, and then a final death with nothing beyond. It's having faith that somehow, that this life has meaning. Most people have at least a little fleeting spirituality.

And some people who follow certain philosophical tenants can have a form of spirituality that doesn't really include any supernatural aspects, or a belief of life beyond death. People who hold a code of honor and who belief that it's better to die a final death while serving that code than to live in violation of it. These are the sorts of people who are without faith in the supernatural or religion, but will put their life in jeopardy to help others, even if they don't have to. For instance, selfless atheists who in WWII, helped to hide or smuggle Jews out of harms way instead of just turning them over to the Nazis for extermination. They may have been hardcore atheists, but it could be argued that their morals formed a sort of spirituality, although they'd never use that term themselves. There are also secular Buddhists, who don't believe in any of the supernatural stuff, but try to live their lives in accordance with Buddhist ethics and morals.

Hmm... I've lost my train of thought here, and don't really have a conclusion to include.  :P

[Sabby]

even then I don't hate people who don't have this kinda "faith" I just kinda feel sorry and try to be nice

Okay, I realize text can make it easy to misunderstand, so I will clarify that there is no affront in what I am about to say, no hidden attack, and no anger. Whatever your answer to my next question is, I will accept it in strides, so please be completely honest.

Do you feel sorry for me?

I have no faith whatsoever, whether it is the textbook kind or the one you just described. The closest you can come to it is that I have faith the sun will rise, and even that is untrue, as I have thousands of days of research on this, and have seen a pattern so predictable I can know beyond a shadow of a doubt when the sun will rise. I can learn the science behind what makes the sun rise, and in doing so, I discover a time may come when the sun will not rise, because the conditions change. Or I can exit these conditions and go to another planet, where a sun cannot rise.

And yet, in my heart, I would expect it to, despite my rational mind knowing better.

That is as close as I come to 'faith'. Do you feel sorry for me, that I believe only what I know to be true? That I don't romanticise concepts before I refine them? That I do not build before I have my foundations?

Please be honest. If you believe the way I think robs me of the magic and wonder of the world, you would be wrong. Removing the mysticism of life has only made it more beautiful.

[Callie Del Noire]

Okay, I realize text can make it easy to misunderstand, so I will clarify that there is no affront in what I am about to say, no hidden attack, and no anger. Whatever your answer to my next question is, I will accept it in strides, so please be completely honest.

Do you feel sorry for me?

I have no faith whatsoever, whether it is the textbook kind or the one you just described. The closest you can come to it is that I have faith the sun will rise, and even that is untrue, as I have thousands of days of research on this, and have seen a pattern so predictable I can know beyond a shadow of a doubt when the sun will rise. I can learn the science behind what makes the sun rise, and in doing so, I discover a time may come when the sun will not rise, because the conditions change. Or I can exit these conditions and go to another planet, where a sun cannot rise.

And yet, in my heart, I would expect it to, despite my rational mind knowing better.

That is as close as I come to 'faith'. Do you feel sorry for me, that I believe only what I know to be true? That I don't romanticise concepts before I refine them? That I do not build before I have my foundations?

Please be honest. If you believe the way I think robs me of the magic and wonder of the world, you would be wrong. Removing the mysticism of life has only made it more beautiful.

Yet you have no problem letting, and accepting, that other folks might see the world differently and through a lens that involves Faith. You don't automaically assume the worse of someone simply because of a title do you?

[Sabby]

Of course not. I admit, there is SPLIT SECOND of lost respect when someone reveals they are religious, but I won't ever let that part of me have a long term say >.< We all have our little biggotries and bias, the only thing we can really do is know that they're there and keep them away from the important parts of our brain.

So no, someone seeing the world through some kind of lens, whether it be mystical or dogmatic, does not change my opinion of them or make me think them below me. It's how they apply those thoughts that will do that :P

[Ironwolf85]

Okay, I realize text can make it easy to misunderstand, so I will clarify that there is no affront in what I am about to say, no hidden attack, and no anger. Whatever your answer to my next question is, I will accept it in strides, so please be completely honest.

Do you feel sorry for me?

I have no faith whatsoever, whether it is the textbook kind or the one you just described. The closest you can come to it is that I have faith the sun will rise, and even that is untrue, as I have thousands of days of research on this, and have seen a pattern so predictable I can know beyond a shadow of a doubt when the sun will rise. I can learn the science behind what makes the sun rise, and in doing so, I discover a time may come when the sun will not rise, because the conditions change. Or I can exit these conditions and go to another planet, where a sun cannot rise.

And yet, in my heart, I would expect it to, despite my rational mind knowing better.

That is as close as I come to 'faith'. Do you feel sorry for me, that I believe only what I know to be true? That I don't romanticise concepts before I refine them? That I do not build before I have my foundations?

Please be honest. If you believe the way I think robs me of the magic and wonder of the world, you would be wrong. Removing the mysticism of life has only made it more beautiful.

No, no I don't.
because you knowing how the sun rises can't rob you of the ability to enjoy seeing that sun rise in the morning or the idea that some day mankind might be able to make their own suns, afterall, 200 years ago who would have thought we'd step on the moon?

I guess spirituality as Stattick discribes it is more my viewpoint, it just sounds all gushy and mystic, or like a Politically correct cop out out saying "I'm spiritual"

The only people who really get under my skin are the people who say things like "Dude why do you bother with reading... I'm going to go home and get drunk till I pass out." but I think it's more a values clash than anything.

[Ironwolf85]

also, I'm a bit of a historian myself, and the way I found my spirituality was in love and forgiveness, even if it's not always easy <.< >.>
I'm not always the most observant person, or the sharpest tounge, but at least I try to be understanding

[Hemingway]

India was colonized robbed by British Imperialism, they dont act like the Muslim nations. You dont have Hindu's murdering people because one of their gods made it into a Simpsons sketch. You can blame anything you like for the state of the Middle East but that does not change the fact that their faith has core issues that will never disappear they are a violent religion while every other faith just has violent individuals.

In the interest of truth and reason, I feel I have to speak up here. Because this simply does not hold up to scrutiny.

First, while I have no love for Islam, or for any religion, the facts simply do not support the notion that Islam is somehow inherently violent. The texts support violence, but as do many religious texts. Certainly the Bible does. That's not the main problem, though. The main problem is that you conflate the Middle East ( a region that includes North Africa and Western Asia, but not such countries as Iran and Afghanistan, to name but a few ) with "the Islamic world". If Islam is the main factor, why does what we think of as violence carried out by Muslims occur almost exclusively in war-torn parts of the Middle East and Asia?

When you start to examine the facts, the connection between Islam and violence doesn't make sense without also factoring in such conditions as oppression, economic turmoil and histories of conflict. Consider this: If, say, the US was invaded and occupied by a foreign power, and the leading resistance movement happened to be violently Christian, do you not think even moderates would flock to it? It seems more like a nationalism or tribalism that cloaks itself in religion. That said, I don't think it's a coincidence that the countries in question also tend to be more religious than, say, Western Europe. But that, I think, is more likely a coincidence of history, or a consequence of a colonial background, and so on.

There's also a question of how much this is simply a matter of perception. I have no trouble at all imagining an ordinary person in the Middle East or some other Muslim majority country seeing these decade-long wars carried out mainly by the US as being Christian wars. And while they may not be religious wars, they certainly have been carried out by religious people, and I think that says something about their character, the character of their religion, and the depth of their belief. If Christianity were any more a religion of peace, you wouldn't have so many Christians ready to kill, even if it wasn't over a religious matter. There may be a difference in why violence is carried out, although as I explained above I don't think this difference is nearly as large as the media would have us believe, but when it comes down to the facts, there's not significant difference. It's more than a few bad apples.

[Silk]

When we speak out against religion and argue against it, we are attacking the philosophy not the person. If I argue against the labor party, I'm not attacking you because you vote labor, nore should my opinion be dismissed purely because you don't like holes in your little bubble of perfection you build yourself around a human concept. :) Sorry but religions been getting on my tit lately.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Religion isn't the problem.  People are the problem.  Using religion as an excuse to pursue hegemony is the problem.  People attacking people because they have faith, don't have faith or have a different faith are the problem.

Blame any person who has taken religion, a belief or an atheistic position and twisted it and used it to support their arguments, their greed and their lust.  People who are religious and good are not that way because of religion.  People who are religious and bad aren't that way because of religion.  They are good or bad by choice.  People choose to hate, attack and hurt others.

I am a religious person and I have faith in my God.  Don't attack me or my faith.  I don't attack you.  Don't attack anyone who has faith when they don't attack you.  Allow me the peace to follow my faith as I allow everyone the peace to follow your chosen path.  Don't approach me with anger and hate because I have no anger or hate for you.  When you attack religion, religious people and faith with anger and hate you are no better than the people you describe who misuse religion and faith as the banner they wave going into battle.

[Sabby]

Beguile, my issue is not with you, its with the organization. The church as a whole. I truly believe it is damaging to society, and is harming many people, worldwide. It should be made to take responsibility and change, and if it won't be reformed, I'd see it removed. Same as any organization.

Have your faith. Its a free country :) I'd never try to take it from you.

[Callie Del Noire]

Beguile, my issue is not with you, its with the organization. The church as a whole. I truly believe it is damaging to society, and is harming many people, worldwide. It should be made to take responsibility and change, and if it won't be reformed, I'd see it removed. Same as any organization.

Have your faith. Its a free country :) I'd never try to take it from you.

But didn't you just declare war on a faith? I doubt there is a single faith in the world that doesn't harm someone else in their actions. (or damable few.. and none of them are among the 'children of the book' in my opinion)

[Sabby]

I've done no such thing. The church does not own Beguiles faith, nor does it have a monopoly on anyones hearts and minds. I view it as an organization.

But this topic is about speaking well of those of faith, and I've given my answer. Ill say nice things of Beguile because she's kind and has helped me on the forums and is well spoken :) what she believes does not effect my saying so.

[Callie Del Noire]

I've done no such thing. The church does not own Beguiles faith, nor does it have a monopoly on anyones hearts and minds. I view it as an organization.

But this topic is about speaking well of those of faith, and I've given my answer. Ill say nice things of Beguile because she's kind and has helped me on the forums and is well spoken :) what she believes does not effect my saying so.

okay.. just trying to see.

I, personally, don't have a lot of faith in organized faiths.. but I know to watch my own bias versus their actions. It can be a very tricky thing to watch out for.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Beguile, my issue is not with you, its with the organization. The church as a whole. I truly believe it is damaging to society, and is harming many people, worldwide. It should be made to take responsibility and change, and if it won't be reformed, I'd see it removed. Same as any organization.

Have your faith. Its a free country :) I'd never try to take it from you.

It's not you.  I don't get the feeling that you come at things from a hateful way.

My issue is with anyone who condemns people who believe and have faith simply because of what the believe.  Having an intolerant attitude toward anyone of faith puts a person on the same level as those they condemn. 

[Sabby]

On that we agree :)

[Beguile's Mistress]

*hugs you*  Thank you. :-)

[Serephino]

When we speak out against religion and argue against it, we are attacking the philosophy not the person. If I argue against the labor party, I'm not attacking you because you vote labor, nore should my opinion be dismissed purely because you don't like holes in your little bubble of perfection you build yourself around a human concept. :) Sorry but religions been getting on my tit lately.

That's just it...  Speaking out against someone's religion in a hateful manner is personal and insulting.  Faith, actual faith, is a very personal thing.  People who only go to church on Sundays out of habit may hear you say that and nod their heads and go about their lives, but someone who is devout is going to feel personally attacked.  I think that's something a lot of Atheists here don't seem to understand.  Me believing there's more to this world than meets the eye doesn't mean I'm stupid or gullible. 

I speak out against extremism.  I'm not a fan of Christianity, but I still have great respect for those who follow the teachings of Jesus, and are actually loving and charitable people.  People get from me as good as they give.  People attack my faith, then get all offended when I write them off as an ignorant jackass.  It's a two-way street. 

[Sabby]

We understand. We just don't care. We see a harmful system, we say so, and someones offense means nothing to the truth of a matter. If my belief that organized religion will dry up as the human race advances, intellectually and culturally, offends people on a personal level because they are of faith, then in sorry, but your feelings are meaningless and misplaced.

Your free to be offended and try to sway my opinions with facts, but the truth you are injecting yourself into a matter that did not include you.

[Hemingway]

I actually don't think organized religion is the only problem. Faith is not a virtue. Because even if you assume that all religious bigotry and violence is a result of the dogmatism of organized religion, it's still grounded in faith. Critical thinking, by its very definition, ends with faith. If you're taking something on faith, you've stopped critically examining your particular belief.

That's not to say that all faith is equally bad, but all faith has the potential to be equally bad. If you take god on faith, but you believe in a vague pantheistic god who doesn't meddle in human affairs or the natural order of things, and who demands nothing from us, then you're unlikely to be the one arguing for teaching intelligent design to little children. Much less blowing yourself up. But it does mean you're capable of and willing to believe things on insufficient evidence, which I don't think is something to be celebrated. It can be a perfectly benign thing, but if you believe that there's inherent value in the truth - that whether or not it's true is the most important thing to consider in any proposition - then there's no room for faith.

[Sabby]

I actually don't think organized religion is the only problem. Faith is not a virtue. Because even if you assume that all religious bigotry and violence is a result of the dogmatism of organized religion, it's still grounded in faith. Critical thinking, by its very definition, ends with faith. If you're taking something on faith, you've stopped critically examining your particular belief.

That's not to say that all faith is equally bad, but all faith has the potential to be equally bad. If you take god on faith, but you believe in a vague pantheistic god who doesn't meddle in human affairs or the natural order of things, and who demands nothing from us, then you're unlikely to be the one arguing for teaching intelligent design to little children. Much less blowing yourself up. But it does mean you're capable of and willing to believe things on insufficient evidence, which I don't think is something to be celebrated. It can be a perfectly benign thing, but if you believe that there's inherent value in the truth - that whether or not it's true is the most important thing to consider in any proposition - then there's no room for faith.

I'm glad this was brought up. I thought for a while about saying similar, but I doubted my ability to convey it. You've said it much better then I would have. You could also say that organized religion is more a symptom of faith then anything, but I look at reforming the Church as the only viable option in my lifetime. Faith is something we'll have until society ascends, and if we should ever regress through some event, it'll come right back, and with it the foundations for another Megachurch.

[Stattick]

I actually don't think organized religion is the only problem. Faith is not a virtue. Because even if you assume that all religious bigotry and violence is a result of the dogmatism of organized religion, it's still grounded in faith. Critical thinking, by its very definition, ends with faith. If you're taking something on faith, you've stopped critically examining your particular belief.

That's not to say that all faith is equally bad, but all faith has the potential to be equally bad. If you take god on faith, but you believe in a vague pantheistic god who doesn't meddle in human affairs or the natural order of things, and who demands nothing from us, then you're unlikely to be the one arguing for teaching intelligent design to little children. Much less blowing yourself up. But it does mean you're capable of and willing to believe things on insufficient evidence, which I don't think is something to be celebrated. It can be a perfectly benign thing, but if you believe that there's inherent value in the truth - that whether or not it's true is the most important thing to consider in any proposition - then there's no room for faith.

I understand the sentiment, but I have to disagree. The kind of spiritualism that I practice doesn't involve mindlessly adhering to any religious dogma or brainwashing. What I've found is true for me is that answers, wisdom, and peace come from within. It doesn't come from some book that was written three thousand years ago by some nomadic shepherds wandering the desert. The thing about finding guidance within, from accepting that you know something that you cannot possibly know, is that over time, what you accept as knowledge and truth from within may change. It may reverse position on some issues. In other words, its fluid and reactionary to the world. It teaches you to be tolerant of others, because you personally know that truth is mutable. You know that what's true for you may be false for another. You don't get that from a book.

The other thing is that critical thinking and faith do not have to enemies or opposites. At the best of times, the two peacefully coexist within me, agreeing. At times though, they disagree. That's always a sign to be cautious, that you're on shaky ground somehow. It's not always something that can be solved right away. At other times, it's just a matter of introspection to figure out what the source of discord is, and to do a meta analysis to try to figure out if it's your belief that's wrong, or your critical thinking has been built on something that seems logical, but contains fallacies that invalidate the conclusion. It also depends on how important the issue is. Sometimes you don't have time for introspection and meta analysis, and you have to make a decision now. Your eyes and experience tell you that it's fine to get in the elevator with that coworker, but for some reason your instincts are screaming to keep your distance. In that case, I'd risk being in error by being cautious, and following my instincts. Sometimes my instincts are stupid, sometimes they lead me awry, but there have been cases where I've been able to verify that they kept me out of danger. But when I follow my instincts despite what my reason tells me, I accept that I might be acting irrationally - or maybe my actions are fully reasonable, but that there's a string of clues that were too subtle for my conscious mind to recognize, but in some deeper subconscious, the clues have been seen and an alarm has been raised and sent forward to my consciousness.

Now, I agree that some people can be blindly faithful. I agree that some people can use faith instead of logic, and that in some people, that two can be opposites that do not interact. But just because some people put their faith in the wrong things, in ancient books, in other people, in religious dogma, in external things, doesn't mean that everyone does, and doesn't invalidate the idea that wisdom and knowledge can come from within. Both methods, gazing within, and looking to the outer world can be used for the same goal, of understanding yourself and your world. And if they're used correctly, they can be used in conjunction with each other, working together on the same problems. Einstein describes how he discovered the theory of relativity as something akin to an inner vision. He was at one point in the universe, and went straight forward at incredible speeds... but it always brought him back to his starting point in time. He intuited that time and space were intertwined, and that nothing was faster than light. The rest, he used logic and math to build, seeing how the number interacted with each other. After intuiting, he spent months (or was it years?) writing everything up, and playing with the numbers and formulas before publishing. At the time, most people thought Einstein's ideas were intriguing, but probably mad, and certainly without evidence that supported them except for some elegant math. And of course, as the decades tick down, we've found more than ample evidence that Einstein was right. But don't forget, he came to his discovery by looking within. He proved it by applying logic.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Faith is part of almost everything in human life.  Perhaps not faith in a divine being, but almost every person has faith in some aspect of their lives.  Everyone believes in something without the critical evidence to back up their assumption.  Without the ability to operate without absolute certainty then people would simply stop to function and act.  People have faith in their leaders, faith in their way of life, faith in their neighbors and so on.  The study of economics easily reveals how much simple belief and faith in the non-existent are required to make the global system function properly.  Faith keeps people moving, keeps them pushing forward despite adversity and suffering.  This is a powerful force that has done much good and bad, still is doing much good and bad in the world.  Faith is not a disease with symptoms, but a gift that needs to be used wisely.

There is not a classic war of critical thinking and faith as many would believe.  Many of the greatest minds in human history were religious minds, some even among the clergy of various religions.  Powerful moments in human history were marked with both faith and religion working together.  Our society cannot ascend as Sabby put it without acknowledging an integral part of being human, which is that we believe in things that are not readily apparent or supported.  How can we rise if we cut away most of the people in the society.

Also, how do you intend to reform the Church when you do not care about the opinion or feelings of anyone that is religious or faithful?  To state that you understand but don’t care is an extremely heartless statement.  To say that people’s feelings are meaningless is an ignorant statement of someone that does not care to learn or understand another person.  Faith and religion are personal parts of a person and their discussion should take that into consideration.  That part of someone is an opportunity for dialogue, not heartless posturing.  To further say that fact won’t sway your opinion only lends toward that image of the ignorant and dogmatic.  Much as people accuse the faithful of being.

[Sabby]

I knew that would come up. Your confusing Religion with religious once more. When I say I do not care of someone's feelings, I am saying that how they feel do not change what is true. If someone commits a crime, removing that person from society will greatly impact on some people. But will it change my opinion on the persons guilt? No. Will it change their sentence? No.

Should we go easier on a Mafia because they have wives and husbands and children and friends who will be stricken with grief at seeing their loved ones removed for their crimes? No, we should not. Should we do so for any organization, no matter their position in society? No.

Peoples FEELINGS do not alter reality. Reality is not a consensus. Many organized Religions have been due for reform for a very long time, and they're never going to be made to answer for themselves if we keep approaching the topic like a hornets nest just because it's 'spiritual to many'. If that makes me cold and heartless, then we seem to value different priorities. If people want to mistake my opinion on an organization as one of their own personal faith, they are self inserting, and assuming I'd take their ability to feel from them. Which is ridiculous :P I won't take blame for sensitive minds perceiving invisible attacks.

[Vanity Evolved]

Faith is part of almost everything in human life.  Perhaps not faith in a divine being, but almost every person has faith in some aspect of their lives.  Everyone believes in something without the critical evidence to back up their assumption.  Without the ability to operate without absolute certainty then people would simply stop to function and act.  People have faith in their leaders, faith in their way of life, faith in their neighbors and so on.  The study of economics easily reveals how much simple belief and faith in the non-existent are required to make the global system function properly.  Faith keeps people moving, keeps them pushing forward despite adversity and suffering.  This is a powerful force that has done much good and bad, still is doing much good and bad in the world.  Faith is not a disease with symptoms, but a gift that needs to be used wisely.

There is not a classic war of critical thinking and faith as many would believe.  Many of the greatest minds in human history were religious minds, some even among the clergy of various religions.  Powerful moments in human history were marked with both faith and religion working together.  Our society cannot ascend as Sabby put it without acknowledging an integral part of being human, which is that we believe in things that are not readily apparent or supported.  How can we rise if we cut away most of the people in the society.

Also, how do you intend to reform the Church when you do not care about the opinion or feelings of anyone that is religious or faithful?  To state that you understand but don’t care is an extremely heartless statement.  To say that people’s feelings are meaningless is an ignorant statement of someone that does not care to learn or understand another person.  Faith and religion are personal parts of a person and their discussion should take that into consideration.  That part of someone is an opportunity for dialogue, not heartless posturing.  To further say that fact won’t sway your opinion only lends toward that image of the ignorant and dogmatic.  Much as people accuse the faithful of being.

This is the problem with terms like 'faith'; it's a hugely loaded word. Yes, people work off 'faith', but not in the same way as a religious person, in most cases.

For example, if I'm dating a girl and we've been together five years. I believe she's not cheating on me. Is this faith in the same sense of religion? No. I've been with my this girl for five years, she's still with me and I have no reason to believe she's cheated on me. Therefore, it makes sense to assume that (at this moment in time), she isn't cheating on me. However, if this same girl has cheated on me several times? Yes, you're operating more on the logic of religious faith; you've got proof that your girlfriend is prone to not remaining faithful, so to wholeheartedly believe that 'She won't do it again' is hopeful thinking. People normally put their 'faith' into things due to past experiences, reasonable outcomes from reasonable expectations. And yes, faith does push people onwards; when you consider what a lot of faiths preach, are you sure that's what you want? Westboro Baptist Church is pushed forward by their hatred of sinners and homosexuals preached by their faith. The Pope preaches immorality and horrid atroscities because he believes an invisible man speaks through him. Religion, however, has not done good; people have done good. A man who is a Christian who helps another man out doesn't prove that Christianity is a good, moral system. It proves that this -man- is a good, moral person. Just like Stalin doesn't prove that Atheism is a cult of personality creating machine.

Also, a lot of large examples of religious good are actually huge evils; look at Mother Teresa, who is revered as a great woman of care and medicine, who actually put people through more suffering, stole their money and greated a cult of suffering and convincing people to embrace their suffering, rather than helping them to develop. My own religious beliefs has similar; the Dalai Llama, a huge advocate of peace, harmony and good will? Given money by the CIA to form militia training camps and, when in power, lived as a king amongst a people who were forced into peasantry to sustain this. Punishments from this regime included eye gouging, burnings, etc.

Lots of great minds were religious, sure. But, to me, this is a product of the times; religion is a huge filter on a person's world view, just like sex and colour was. If you weren't a Christian, good luck being accepted or being paid any mind. There's an entire movement (The Clergy Project) devoted to helping those within the faith who've lost their belief get jobs and fit back in with non-religious communities, as they're stuck within their religion for fear of not being able to support themselves or find social circles outside of it. However, just because we can explain one portion of something, it doesn't mean we can explain another, where religion finds itself; the Greeks knew the world was round. That didn't stop them believing a chariot pulled the sun across the sky, because they had no clue on how the sun circled the Earth.

One major part of reformation, for me, would be completely abolishing any idea that religion is anything different than any other organization. I believe they should be taxed. They should also be made to answer for the problems they cause, and promptly called out for it - if any other person went to countries and preaching death sentences to Africans (Don't use condoms, they don't stop HIV!), would they get away with it? If people had proof of mass child sex offenses and cover-ups within a business (The Vatican), would they be allowed to just keep doing it?

As Sabs said, your feelings in situations have no value. It has nothing to do with your feelings. It may upset some pastors that, say, they have to pay taxes, but paying faxes and bills also makes me sad. Does that mean I get a break from it, if I don't feel like paying and talk to an imaginary friend?

[Sabby]

Thank you Ryu. You seemed to understand on the first go.

[Oniya]

I find it so strange that a thread with the suggestion that everyone should just be nice to each other for a change has turned into such a heated exchange of why we shouldn't be nice to 'those other folks'.

Just saying.

[Sabby]

I thought I was pretty clear the first time. I'm nice to folks who are nice folks. But apparently whenever I talk about concepts people may have, I'm talking about the person with the concept :P My choices are linger on the topic until the misunderstanding is clarified or drop it entirely, and I find that extremely unfair. I haven't said a single unkind thing about any individual or suggested that anyone treat someone differently for their beliefs.

I've gone to lengths to clarify just the opposite. If I have to go any simpler then that you'll be hearing monosyllables from me.

[Vanity Evolved]

It is a bit of a misconception; people arn't hating on each other. Just like I'm not going to like someone -because- of their faith, I'm not going to dislike someone because of their faith. It doesn't stop me pointing out the that a belief system is flawed, immoral or causing harm.

[Hemingway]

Faith is part of almost everything in human life.  Perhaps not faith in a divine being, but almost every person has faith in some aspect of their lives.  Everyone believes in something without the critical evidence to back up their assumption.  Without the ability to operate without absolute certainty then people would simply stop to function and act.  People have faith in their leaders, faith in their way of life, faith in their neighbors and so on.

I don't think that's actually true. Your proposition lacks, appropriately enough, evidence. Of the ones you mentioned, only the last is really true of me. And that's only because experience tells me that my neighbors can be trusted. Which means that it's not faith. And the list could go on. Your claim simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

The study of economics easily reveals how much simple belief and faith in the non-existent are required to make the global system function properly.

It's funny you should mention faith in the economy, since blind faith and people willing to take advantage of it is more or less the entire reason we're in such deep economic trouble right now. Strangely, that particular faith not be as far from religious faith as the examples you gave above.

Faith keeps people moving, keeps them pushing forward despite adversity and suffering.  This is a powerful force that has done much good and bad, still is doing much good and bad in the world.  Faith is not a disease with symptoms, but a gift that needs to be used wisely.

In the words of Bertrand Russell:

When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only: What are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or what you think could have beneficent social effects if it were believed; but look only and solely at what are the facts.

That's my view as well. Whether or not something is helpful to someone has no bearing on whether or not it's true. And if you think that whether or not it's helpful is more important than if it's true, then we can end the discussion right now, because we're simply not going to agree.

The other thing is that critical thinking and faith do not have to enemies or opposites.

But they are. By their very definition, they are. To think critically is to ask questions, to approach them rationally, and base your judgment on the evidence you have. If the evidence is lacking, you withhold judgment. That's the opposite of what faith is, namely belief on insufficient or entirely lacking evidence. To take something on faith is to stop asking questions, to abandon your critical faculties, and essentially to declare that the facts don't matter.

That's really the most important thing I wanted to talk about in your post, and since this post is already getting quite long, I'll end it at that. If there's something else of great importance you feel I failed to address, just let me know.

[Silk]

I'll dismiss and attack anyone who has a largely toxic and volatile belief system that serves little purpose anymore besides to support their opinions with some kind of athority. Shame religion is one of those systems, as is anti-sematism, neo-feminism, or any of the sort, stop feeling entitled because your part of a long list of suspects that is damaging to society in some fashion. People take heart in their religion, I know someone who takes solace in being a racist bigot, but he donates to charity and does some charity work, does that absolve him of his toxic world veiw? Hell no.

Disclaimer: If you don't like this statement and think that it's hurt your feelings, remeber that people try endlessly to cater to your need of not having your feeling hurt, yet get told their hurting them anyway, eventually people like me will have enough and stop trying to pander to your feelings and just tell you exactly what they think.

[Stattick]

The other thing is that critical thinking and faith do not have to enemies or opposites.

But they are. By their very definition, they are. To think critically is to ask questions, to approach them rationally, and base your judgment on the evidence you have. If the evidence is lacking, you withhold judgment. That's the opposite of what faith is, namely belief on insufficient or entirely lacking evidence. To take something on faith is to stop asking questions, to abandon your critical faculties, and essentially to declare that the facts don't matter.

That's really the most important thing I wanted to talk about in your post, and since this post is already getting quite long, I'll end it at that. If there's something else of great importance you feel I failed to address, just let me know.

As I said before, there are different kinds of faith, and different definitions for it. Some people have faith and logic, and place logic above faith. There are all kinds of different ways that faith and logic can interact in a given person. It's incredibly unfair to lump all people of faith into a single group of 'irrational believers', and it doesn't match up with the real world either. For instance, in the US, most scientists and doctors are some variety of Christian. Yet for most of them, their faith does not impede science, research, or making discoveries. Most doctors will prescribe birth control, regardless of what their denomination says about it. Most surgeons would endorse a woman getting an abortion to save her life, regardless of what the fundamentalist loons say about it. Geologists, paleontologists, and others gladly build on the scientific data we have, instead of blindly clinging to the idea that Jehovah created the world in seven days a few thousand years ago. In the vast majority of cases, I don't see these people's faith getting in the way of their reason.

[Vanity Evolved]

But they are. By their very definition, they are. To think critically is to ask questions, to approach them rationally, and base your judgment on the evidence you have. If the evidence is lacking, you withhold judgment. That's the opposite of what faith is, namely belief on insufficient or entirely lacking evidence. To take something on faith is to stop asking questions, to abandon your critical faculties, and essentially to declare that the facts don't matter.

That's really the most important thing I wanted to talk about in your post, and since this post is already getting quite long, I'll end it at that. If there's something else of great importance you feel I failed to address, just let me know.


As I said before, there are different kinds of faith, and different definitions for it. Some people have faith and logic, and place logic above faith. There are all kinds of different ways that faith and logic can interact in a given person. It's incredibly unfair to lump all people of faith into a single group of 'irrational believers', and it doesn't match up with the real world either. For instance, in the US, most scientists and doctors are some variety of Christian. Yet for most of them, their faith does not impede science, research, or making discoveries. Most doctors will prescribe birth control, regardless of what their denomination says about it. Most surgeons would endorse a woman getting an abortion to save her life, regardless of what the fundamentalist loons say about it. Geologists, paleontologists, and others gladly build on the scientific data we have, instead of blindly clinging to the idea that Jehovah created the world in seven days a few thousand years ago. In the vast majority of cases, I don't see these people's faith getting in the way of their reason.

From what I recall of the numbers, scientists tend to be towards 70% Atheist or non-believers - but I heard that from somewhere, so I have no source. 30% of scientists having faith is still a pretty hefty number, though.

However, when it comes to the doctors? That point doesn't really make any sense. Even if they didn't want to, they have to because remember that little thing about how your religious beliefs can't impede your work? Especially in America, where one of the ideals the country was built on is your religion does not apply to anything you do if it affects people? Someone did try not proscribing birth control in a story if I recall, because of his religious beliefs, and was promptly sued to Hell and back. I'd love to see what would happen if a Jehovah's Witness practicing medicine came up to his patient and said "Well, we could save your life, but I think transfusing blood to you would make you a dirty sinner, so I'm just going to let you die."

[Kate]

wow five pages.

that is my personal best for starting a political / religious thread, its interesting to see others views on this.

I think we MUST be getting SOMEWHERE, regardless of the tensions between groups of people now, it was a lot worse in the past, we are becoming more peaceful and less confrontational generally, as far as frequency of wars anyway) Just seems frustrating we are not already there.

[Avis habilis]

Enough. General observation: the original poster was looking to create a positive atmosphere. Stopping in here by to catalog the failings of belief systems you don't like does not, oddly enough, do that. So don't.

The thread can stay polite & respectful or be locked. Your choice.

[Sabby]

Okay guys. Should we be nicer to a person of Muslim faith on principle? A yes or no shall do.

[Oreo]

I can't do a simple yes or no. But, I will make it as short as possible. Love and kindness starts with me, so yes.

[Sabby]

I can't do a simple yes or no. But, I will make it as short as possible.

That's my point. The question is malformed, but I've given as thorough an answer as I can considering. So I'm going to remove myself until the question changes.

[Ironwolf85]

I am in with oreo, I've seen many good people of faith in my life, and I think everyone should be embraced with open arms.
I'd welcome the day a muslim, christan, and hindu walk into a bar after work, the muslim orders a coffie (drink is against his faith) and the three of them laugh and jibe each other much as you would at a football game.
I have a hindu dentist... he's cool.

Also the 70% athiesim rate for scientists, that EU demographics, not the US. In the states it's more a 40/60 split in favor of faith.

You should see other heated stuff, like the fight in New England over red socks and yankees, or East side of a city VS West side of a city. I think it comes from the same "my tribe is better" instinct we have left over from the old days. Tribal divisions haven't done africa any favors, so I say we relax about it.

I also believe the westbrougho baptsits get more media attention than a clinic or church community center in one of LA's poorer areas that gets kids off drugs or teaches them a way out of the gang life. Unless of course the clinic gets robbed or firebombed, then it gets on the news.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Okay guys. Should we be nicer to a person of Muslim faith on principle? A yes or no shall do.

Nicer? No.  Just as nice, just as good, just as respectful?  Yes.

There is a hymn that is sung in my church but was also used in the movie "Independence Day."  The first line is:

Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me.

Ii treat everyone the same.  That promotes peace.

[Kate]

Yes.

(My own subject reasoning: A baby step for me towards un-condtional love, for ME to spiritually grow I feel its a good road to start a journey on)

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Emotions and feelings have a great deal to do with reality.  People live and die based on emotions.  Countries are toppled by what feelings they can invoke in another nation’s populace and in their own people.  When confidence is high inside a nation’s borders there is a surge of productivity and benefits to the economy and to social welfare.  The same goes for when there are good feelings and emotions inside the workplace.  People’s lifespans increase based on their emotions and feelings, their healing process in the hospital shortens if they are feeling good and have positive energy.  Emotions and feelings most certainly affect reality.  If atheists seek to foster change in the religious community, then caring about their emotions would have an effect on their progress.

Scientific scrutiny has upheld that belief does guide human interaction and assumption oils the machine of social welfare and government.  Research into authority figures (i.e. police officers, medical personnel, higher ranking soldiers) has shown the effectiveness of their presence simply because people feel a boost to confidence and a belief in the abilities of that figure.  Erwin Goffman did a great deal of research about social cues and interactions whereby belief in various symbols affected the interaction of two people.  Symbolism in society is another field that discusses how belief in various cues and objects affects people.  Institutions have the faith of people such as the Supreme Court.  Once judgment is based down from the Supreme Court, the majority of people accept that judgment.  They may not like the judgment, but they accept the judgment.

Also, stating that my points do not hold up to scrutiny and then contending that blind faith lead to economic collapse seems a poor choice.  Economy did fail through bad faith, but at the same time was created by faith and belief.  Credit and currency are two prime examples of this belief.  Faith has been betrayed in the recent economic collapse, leading to a great many reforms and restructures in an attempt to restore faith and confidence in the system.  Economics affects all aspects of society.

As for the discussion on helpful and truth, we can end that discussion then I suppose.  In my opinion a useful and helpful tool does not lose value because the item does not work as people imagined. 

Not sure where this disdain for Mother Teresa is coming from at this time.  Second person to bring that up and with very little supporting evidence or statement.  I went looking for this evidence and found nothing but people who did not understand the inner workings of medicine discussing this topic.

I also don’t think that taxing religious structures and groups would have the affect people think it would on those structures and people.

Doctors can write and not write whatever prescriptions they feel are necessary.  Just as a patient can seek a second opinion from another physician and have their healthcare performed elsewhere.  Birth control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy is not considered a medical emergency to where a physician must treat on the spot.  Unless the woman had some other sort of issue going on such as a hormonal problem causing her pain and/or distress that would be fixed by a birth control pill, the physician is under no obligation to write that prescription.

[Oniya]

I'd like to see some reputable sources on the 'Mother Teresa' and 'Dalai Lama' allegations as well.

[Vanity Evolved]

You're right; emotions and feelings do have a great deal to do with reality. Without them, we'd be dead. It's that subconcious worry of our species and the enjoyment we get from sex which makes us want to have sex, it's our love for our country, our friends and family that make us want to fight against dictatorship and percieved wrongs.

However, in the sense you're describing them? Feelings don't change anything. Say I have a friend who has cancer. They refuse to go to the hospital out of fear. There's a good chance they could survive this horrid disease. I have the choice of patting her on the head and giving her a cuddle, making her feel nice and happy, or I can tell her that no, you need to buck up, get down to that hospital now and stop being a pussy, because if you do nothing, that dirty thing inside of you is going to kill you? Ignoring and hugging a problem doesn't make it go away. Reassuring someone, and telling them they're right for not getting their arm set back in place when it's broke doesn't cause it to correct itself; it causes it to permanently warp and set in a painful, horrid way. Ignorance doesn't solve anything.

Once again, you're making the disconnect between the idea of a belief, and the idea of religious belief, which are two hugely different entities - I can have a belief that, say, Obama is the best thing for America. People can produce evidence for, or against that. I -believe- that the big bang theory is the most likely cause for the creation of our universe. Is this the same as believing the world was made by God? No. "This two thousand year book says he did" is basing your belief on something with no proof, and the hope that it's right. My belief in how the world was made was founded on brilliant minds working for centuries to piece together the puzzle which is beginning of life.

This point I've already covered. Faith, and the idea of religious faith are two seperate things. You can have faith in your friend doing well in their test.

A good source for Mother Teresa's horrid dealings can be found in the Missionary Position (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position), and if you're not that into reading something so hefty, check out the Penn and Teller Bullshit! Episode "Holier than Thou" (Penn and Teller - Holier Than Thou (Full Episode)). It has a layman summary of the wrongs revered religious figures have willingly caused.

And you're right, it most likely wouldn't. But the idea of not taxing religion is on the assumption that they provide a service to the world - one which they don't, and the few they do which could be served better in a secular setting.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Yes, but calling a cancer patient a pussy is not likely to motivate them to seek out medical treatment.  Once more, her emotions of fear for what will come are sustained so that she does not seek medical treatment.  Even when she seeks treatment her fear is sustained so that the treatment will be harder for her than on someone who had a positive discussion with their friend.  Support, reassurance, discussion and alleviation of negative emotions produce better outcomes.  A glance at a nursing diagnosis book will reveal as much. 

A book by one of the leaders of “fundamentalist atheism” and a television show that calls one of their guests from the Catholic League a “fucker.”  These are the sources from which you draw these claims?  I am at a loss for why people are not boycotting the sainthood of Mother Teresa.

Believing in the Big Bang Theory also does not dismiss someone’s belief that God made the world.  Once more there is a pitting of religion against science that is not necessary or true.  My separation of faith in religion and faith in “everything else” is due to the statements of Hemmingway on faith and critical thought.

I would say that religious groups do a lot of charitable good in the world that is not supported by the secular entities.  Schools, hospitals, construction of homes and introduction of modern thought and tools are all things spread by religion.  Religious institutions have also pushed for minorities to vote in democratic nations, supported and established community centers for impoverished urban areas and supported the civil rights movement of the United States.

[Oniya]

When I clicked your link...

I have to say, this doesn't engender a whole lot of confidence.

[Stattick]

Well, I've read time and again, about the quality of care that Mother Teresa's "clinics" gave out, and I think it's abhorrent. First off, no pain killers used under any circumstances. Mother Teresa believed that pain brought people closer to God and let them share in Christ's suffering. This was also why her clinics only allowed cold baths. There was no attempt to separate terminal patients from patients that could be saved. They shared the same dormitories. So, you'd have people all around you dying if you were a patient. There was no attempt to separate the infectious from other patients. So you might have a patient in the next bed over with an extremely contagious disease such as whooping cough, mumps, measles, or whatnot. Improper sterilization procedures were used. Syringes were reused from patient to patient, often without even an attempt to sterilize them. You might go in to the clinic with something curable like bronchitis and through contaminated needles catch AIDS. Medicine was practiced by the nuns without medical training. So, your bronchitis might kill you because they thought you were a terminal lung cancer patient and they didn't give you antibiotics. Or maybe they don't take into account that you have hepatitis, and they give you too high a dose of antibiotics at once, shutting down your liver and killing you... and then giving your hepatitis to a bunch more patients. Often, instead of giving medical treatments, they'd just force you to listen to prayers or get preached at for hours on end. Afterall, salvation is more important than your life, especially if you're Hindu instead of Catholic. On the other hand, free soup. Just google Mother Teresa criticism, and you'll find a plethora of sites talking about these problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Criticism

In regards to the Dali Lama, I haven't heard any accusations of him. If true, it's news to me.

[Vanity Evolved]

I was giving the link for Wikipedia to refer to the book, not the topics within the Wiki; sorry for not being clearer.

No, but telling them the truth is certainly going to help; I had to go through it myself. Tough love is sometimes the only way to get through to people, proof that 'happyhappy nicenice' isn't the way the world always works. If it hadn't been for my friend forcing me to look for housing, and kicked me in the arse to get up and do something rather than drown myself in WoW and alcohol? I'd be on the streets right now. If I hadn't of dragged my mother to the doctors to at least try and get treatment for her cancer, she would have gladly sat at home, rotting away.

I'd love to know what 'fundamentalist Atheism is'. A man's rudeness does not detract from his knowledge on a subject.

The theory of Creationism versus science is where it gets tricky. Mainly because the Bible is so open to people picking and choosing between what they want to believe from the same book; logically, you need the majority of the Bible for it to even come close to working. Without Genesis, you don't have the Garden of Eden. Without Eden, you don't have Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve, you don't have the Fall, which means no sin, etc. The Bible states Creationism as the source of the world, not the Big Bang. You -can- believe both, sure, but then you're getting into the weird situation where apparently the Bible is God's law unto man - except full of glaring errors which he needs humanity to rationalize for him.

And there's a reason for that; religious organizations are funded by the government, in large portions of the world, particularly in the US. Secular organizations do charitable work, but they just don't have the funding. Religion doesn't promote charity; nine times out of ten, a lot of these charities use this money, food and education to misinform and recruit. Some organizations will spend millions to print and distribute Bibles amongst African villages, and build churches (which sometimes double as schools) where the faith can be preached, ignoring nesscessities while misinforming those in need on birth control, etc. Minorities are also a prime candidate for this, because of similar reasoning; people are certainly libel to listen to what you have to say, as long as you're dangling a sandwich over their head while you do it. Our local Jesus Center does a similar thing, where you can be given free housing for the homeless - as long as you recruit more people, and attend the enforced religious meet ups they regularly have.

[Oniya]

I'd love to know what 'fundamentalist Atheism is'. A man's rudeness does not detract from his knowledge on a subject.

If one is rude enough to the point that no one wants to listen to them, then the knowledge does as much good as a book that's never opened.  It doesn't matter whether that subject is philosophy, physics, or the load-bearing aeronautic capabilities of Hirundo rustica.

[Sabre]

I think there are key differences between Muslims and the other faiths, Muhammad is the only religious leader who lead his faith from the point of a sword. I think that creates a very different outlook on faith then almost any other. Crimes have been committed in the name of peaceful faiths since the beginning of time but none have promoted violence like the Muslims do.

Many have, and a careful study of the earliest Muslim texts will show that the last thing happening among Islamic scholars was promotion of violence.  There was a defense of past violence and an attempt to explain the status quo antebellum with the Byzantines during the 8th and 9th centuries, but the only ones in early Islamic history who ever approached something promoting violence i.e. something distinct from Roman and Christian just war concepts are the Kharijite cult (who were friends with no one but themselves).

Jesus Christ died for our sins, he believed all people could be saved, Moses never engaged in violence himself to save his people, Buddha Gautama tossed away all possessions and discovered enlightenment, and the list goes on.

The list of Old Testament patriarchs who engaged in serious violence is extensive.  But it is not exactly true that either Moses or Jesus shirked away from violence - they like many prophets followed a biblical tradition of promising and threatening violence on those who did not join them.  The actual violence would be committed by God.

Muhammad alone believed in violence in the name of god and claims god supports violence for the sake of oneness no matter how many beautiful aspects exist in the Qur'an, I dont think it can remove that taint because it exists in the core of its faith. There are no less than 109 verses that call for war against non believers in their book of faith and while Christianty has violent verses its in historical or storytelling context the Quran does not have that, its open ended and preaches eternal war until all exists under their faiths banner.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

The Quran in fact is not open ended.  Any and every reading of tafsir - official commentaries on the Quran - all tie every verse relating to violence to a specific time against a specific tribe in a specific context.  Exactly like the verses in the Old Testament.  The very clue is in the first verse you quote: "and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out."

That is anything but general and open-ended.  Verse 8:12 by the way is quoted incompletely, and is as follows: "[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.""

Again, no different than any other verse in, say, the Old Testament where the wicked are smote with flaming swords from heaven.

Muhammad led his people too Mecca and he led them in war against the native peoples. HE did it, not a Muslim king but the prophet himself.

Muhammad and his people were the natives of Mecca.  It was their home before they fled in exile.  What makes Muhammad unique isn't that he did something no prophet had done, but that he did the collective work of more than one as equal parts Jesus, Moses and David.  As Jesus during his years preaching to the poor, the downtrodden, and the enslaved while being persecuted and harangued by the powers that be.  As Moses during the exodus of Muslims from Mecca into Medina and Ethiopia and their subsequent rebuilding of society away from their past lives.  And as David fighting back against the Meccan coalition and ultimately returning to Mecca as a conqueror to establish the city as both holy city and capital.

There are some (Anti religious factions) who believe Christ had a temper, but the difference here is huge. Christ may have lost his temper in between self sacrifices. Muhammad was a warlord.

A warlord is someone who usurps power from a legitimate central authority through force of arms, and for that reason is a pejorative.  In this case it's little more than a buzzword tossed around on the blogosphere in lieu of actual debate and conversation.  Muhammad was invited and elected to be chief judge of the independent city-state of Medina.  That is not warlordism anymore than Obama is a warlord.

I am not saying regional issues don't have an effect on the state of each individual country and their reaction to Isreal and the West in general. What I am saying is that the sword of Islam holds more weight for the use of violence and the spreading of violence among Muslims than anything else.

This is unconvincing considering the lack of violence and spread of violence among Muslims in the three hundred or so years before the 20th century, where we suddenly see a sharp spike in violence brought about by radicals.  If this is proof of anything, it is that regional and economic issues are the greater factors in determining the use and spread of violence far more than a theoretical sword of Islam.

India was colonized robbed by British Imperialism, they dont act like the Muslim nations. You dont have Hindu's murdering people because one of their gods made it into a Simpsons sketch. You can blame anything you like for the state of the Middle East but that does not change the fact that their faith has core issues that will never disappear they are a violent religion while every other faith just has violent individuals.

You may be unfamiliar with India, but yes you do have Hindus who murder and riot because someone insulted a Hindu god, or dared to convert one of their children to Christianity or Islam, or thought to slaughter a sacred cow for food, or release a bawdy Bollywood movie where a man and woman kiss on screen.  Few if any of the objections so far heard are even a part of Islam's core teachings to begin with, and to believe it alone is special and cannot be changed is unjustified hubris.  It was doing just that at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.

I would argue that many of those cultural advances in the Middle East belonged to the Orthodox Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire (That later became Byzantium) the Middle East and Muslims simply benefited from Geography they had China and India to the East and all the secrets of Rome to the West and gained a great deal from these 2 regions and this may have moderated the Muslim peoples...

...

Yes. Western Europe compared to the Middle East was barbaric. What I am saying is that the enlightened state of the Middle East is not due to Middle East innovation but the innovation of Asia (China and India) AND the remnants of Rome in Byzantium. They gained most from the trade lanes that moved through those regions.

They acted much as Western Europe did after they brought back their "Pillaged" knowledge.

This is a popular argument to make.  It's also a very poor one and doesn't stand up to the most basic scrutiny.

Question: if many (or even some) of these scientific and philosophical advances in the Middle East belonged to the Byzantine Empire, then where were they?  I mean, the Eastern Romans have had these very same texts for over 700 years.  What did they do with them before the rise of the Muslim Caliphates?  The answer is nothing.  Or worse, outright destruction during incidents of fanaticism like the closing of the philosopher schools in Athens, the burning of the Library of Alexandria, or the famous persecution of Hypatia.

Ask yourself: were medicine, mathematics, engineering, astronomy, mechanics, optics, construction techniques, ship building techniques, any more advanced in the 14th century Byzantium than they had been in 4rth century Rome?  No.

And then ask yourself the question: Why?

The simple truth is that the Byzantines did not care enough about secular learning. This explains not only their stagnation, but also the immense, both in importance and quantity, amount of knowledge that slipped through their hands due to negligence. How are we supposed to explain this harsh reality?

Do you know that of Archimedes’ 38 known works only 16 have survived? Now, we can’t conclusively blame the loss of all of those on the Byzantines, because large part of the Alexandrine library, which may have stored them, was destroyed in the fire of 48BC, but one can easily reproach the Byzantines for the following: of those 16 that have survived, 4 have survived in Arabic alone, which means that the Byzantines had possession of them until some point and then lost them, without even making an attempt to recover them later. The same is true with Euclid’s Elements, the quintessential book of geometry whose importance cannot be stressed enough. It survived only in its Arabic verse. The same with Hero’s Pneumatics, another monumental scientific treatise. Isidore, a great 6th century engineer who rebuilt Hagia Sophia’s dome after an earthquake, had access to Hero’s Kamarika, an edition of which he had issued along with his commentary. Both works disappear from sight at a later date.

And this phenomenon is not just restricted to the natural sciences. Theopompus’ hugely important History of Philip, in 58 books, existed in Constantinople in the 9th century. Later it was lost. The same story with the work of Ephorus, the greatest historian of the 4rth century BC. All of Polybius 40 books of his Histories existed in 5th century AD in the empire for sure, but today only 5 books have survived intact and the rest in fragments preserved in other works.

The amount of knowledge lost is staggering. And the truth is that this process was facilitated by a high degree of indifference, indifference of the kind displayed by the 13th century Levantine monk who erased a compilation of Archimedes texts (for the record there were just two other such manuscripts in the entire Byzantine world, known in modern bibliography as Code A and Code B) in order to use the book’s pages to write prayers! That’s the story of the Palimpsest, for those who don’t know, it’s worth looking it up.


Now consider this:  The vast majority of scientific texts and philosophy that influenced the Arabs came from the Greek Classical Age and similarly dated Indian golden ages, which predates Alexander's conquest of Persia.  His empire, and the subsequent Seleucid successor, stretched from Greece to India incorporating the very same centers of learning the Muslim Caliphate did.  Yet there was no known Golden Age even remotely comparable to the one in the 9th-13th centuries.  The output of famous mathematicians in the Greek Classical Age was never matched by any age until the rise of the Islamic one, and then the Italian Renaissance.

I think I'll leave this point with the words of eminent Mediterranean historian Fernand Braudel:

For four or five centuries, Islam was the most brilliant civilization in the Old World. (...) At its higher level the golden age of Muslim civilization was both an immense scientific success and a exceptional revival of ancient philosophy. These was not its only triumphs; literature was another: but they eclipse the rest. First, science: it was there that the Saracens (...) made the most original contributions. These, in brief, were nothing less than trigonometry and algebra (with its significantly Arab name). (...) Equally distinguished were Islam's mathematical geographers, its atronomical observatories and instruments (...). The Muslims also deserve high marks for optics, for chemistry (...) and for pharmacy. More than half the remedies and healings aids used by the West came from Islam (...). Muslim medical skill was incontestable. (...) In the field of philosophy, what took place was rediscovery - a return, essentially of the peripatetic philosophy. The scope of this rediscovery, however, was not limited to copying and handling on, valuable as that undoubtely was. It also involved continuing, elucidating and creating.

... but as you see historically the rise of fanatical Muslims from the Central Africa which conquered Spanish Muslims and Christians alike violence remained the focal point of their faith.

First, from North Africa.  Not Central.  And second, the Almoravid and Almohad movements were anything but representatives of anything approaching normal Islamic doctrine.  Morocco was a land of local saints and cult leaders, and these two Berber religious movements were no different.  Their religion was indeed puritanical and promoted violence above learning and culture, but they were the radicals of their time.  During this period Al-Ghazali was the most famous and most followed Islamic theologian of the age.  His influence was felt from Egypt to India as his fusion of legalist and gnostic attitudes defined Islam for the next several centuries.

His books were also burned by the Almoravids and Almohads, the later even more heretical than the former as they proclaimed themselves caliphs - successors - not of Muhammad but their own prophet.