Comments on Rotten Gods: The greatest threat to Islam

fundalmentalists spend too long with their heads i...

2010-07-30T23:39:45.247-04:00

fundalmentalists spend too long with their heads in the clouds sniffing the reeking bums of angels and acting like it was cocaine.the two major religions come from two brothers so like WW1 the rest of us get dragged in to a family dispute.for two thousand years religion has brought nothing but tears and iconic symbols to plant on the graves

Pint of cider waiting for you on the bar for that ...

2010-07-29T04:24:28.694-04:00

Pint of cider waiting for you on the bar for that one!

@Ferrán García I completely agree with you that <...

2010-07-28T00:09:58.747-04:00

@Ferrán García

I completely agree with you that "no one should be able to force anyone to do anything based on speculation". And I completely agree that ideology/religion should not be above question nor imposed on anyone. But I think such a statement raises an obvious question for us both, namely: How do we know this? How do we know that it is morally reprehensible to impose a religion on another person? How do we demonstrate that it is morally wrong if, as you claim, "all truth is relative"? Is the belief that no one should be tortured or beaten or killed for refusing to accept a religion also a "relative" truth, meaning that in some circumstances, it can be morally neutral or morally good to impose religion on people?
I can't completely demonstrate it, but I hold that there are some things which are absolute moral truths. For example, stoning a baby to death is morally wrong no matter what. Even if the lives of the population of an entire nation depended on a baby being stoned to death, stoning the baby to death could never be the morally right thing to do. So I hold that there are some things which are moral absolutes. If I make the claim that "all truth is relative", then stoning a baby to death could be argued to be "morally good" in certain circumstances.
The reason I am saying this is because, if you try and use the "relativism" argument to say that religion/speculation should not be imposed, the argument can be turned against you. Confronting one set of imposed beliefs (as with the attackers of the cartoonists in the original video in the article) with another set of imposed beliefs (ie that this should not be permitted and is morally wrong) leaves room for the critical response: "why should you be allowed to impose your moral beliefs and not us?".

I think the only answer is to directly question the belief system which is imposing itself. For example (and this is a very simple one):

1) Lets assume that there is a Transcendent Supreme Being who created the Universe and directs the course of history.

2) Lets assume this Transcendent Supreme Being is worshipped by some and not others.

3) Lets assume that this Transcendent Supreme Being orders that those those who worship it must make war on the enemies of the Supreme Being.

By issuing the order mentioned in (3), hasn't this Supreme Being just proven that It is neither Transcendent nor Supreme? If It needs lower forms of existence (which It created Itself) to defend It against Its "enemies", how "Supreme" "Transcendent" or can It be?

@Free Thinker I thought it was clear that we were...

2010-07-27T09:34:03.376-04:00

@Free Thinker

I thought it was clear that we were talking about religion, so any reference to Metaphysics here is related to religion. Any philosopher, any theologian can argue about the existence of a god, but that's all, they cannot demonstrate its existence, they can only speculate about it, so it's not a fact and no one should be able to force anyone else to do anything based on a speculation.

Regarding "truth", even in Science it IS relative, but at least there are ways to check it, and those ways MUST be reproducible by others, no "acts of faith" here

Faggotory can also mean stupid actions. Read web l...

2010-07-27T06:39:54.479-04:00

Faggotory can also mean stupid actions. Read web lingo. This was the intention and not on a homosexual basis.

@Ferrán García It is non sequitur that Metaphysic...

2010-07-27T06:38:37.910-04:00

@Ferrán García

It is non sequitur that Metaphysics "should be confined to the personal circle" simply by virtue of being non-empirical. Metaphysics and religion are not the same thing. For example, ontology deals with an [b]objective[/b] reality, so how can we say that the study of "being" is a "personal" subject?
You premise seems to be that in metaphysics, there are no absolute truths, and that truth can only be relative. Firstly, how do we know that there are no absolute metaphysical truths? And secondly to say "All metaphysical truth is relative" means that there must be at least one absolute truth, and that is that "all truth is relative"- which is self contradictory.

one more before bedtime. http://encyclopediadrama...

2010-07-27T06:19:20.822-04:00

one more before bedtime.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Science_And_Faith.jpg

ED Forum Rules Mod sass. Goes without saying. * Ch...

2010-07-27T06:13:03.051-04:00

ED Forum Rules
Mod sass. Goes without saying.
* Chanspeak/spamming memes like cancer. It is not 4chan, no one wants to hear your stupid memes repeated over and over.
* Being a faggot. Gays are allowed. Faggots are not.

People still do not read before opening their mouths.

@Free Thinker As you say, the existence of any go...

2010-07-27T05:40:37.302-04:00

@Free Thinker

As you say, the existence of any god is a metaphysical question, so it should be confined to the personal circle, as a personal belief. Why? Just because each one can have a different view of things, even when sharing a common religion. Most of the times, religions are the view of a single person that has spreaded over many others: Mohammed, Jesus, etc.

That agreed, personal beliefs shouldn't be used to govern a country, ruling over human rights and different gender, skin colour, economic condition or different faiths.

Main difference between Science and Religions is t...

2010-07-27T05:28:13.694-04:00

Main difference between Science and Religions is that Science not only allows criticism on scientific theories, it encourages criticism, it's the way to go forward, to make discoveries, new findings. Religion is quite the contrary, they roots are so weak that it doesn't allow free thinking, let alone free speech.

Now it's happening to Islam what happened to Catolicism some centuries ago, it got questioned in a general way, even with the opposition of the clerical power in that period, that was very strong. Now Islam seems to be entering, after a loong and dark Middle Age, it's own Renaissance period, with muslims questioning the basis of their own religion, the inequality between men and women, etc., streching its ambit of operation strictly to the so called "faith".

Catolicism/Christianity has finally realized (or, at least, I want to sse it that way) that religion cannot be used to explain scientific facts, to explain how things work (in fact, first gods were created in order to explain atmospheric events, like bolts and thunders) and our politicians have realized that religion should not, cannot be used as a reference, as a law for governing a country. And Islam religious authorities and politicians will realize too sooner than later.

Firstly, just to come clean, I am an Eastern Ortho...

2010-07-27T05:06:48.776-04:00

Firstly, just to come clean, I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian believer, but I hope that doesn't turn you off any hope of dialogue with me.
Actually, I can agree with the earlier points that religion is a illness, and some of the worst crimes against humanity have been done in its name. But lets assume that every religion on Earth is false- does this automatically exclude the possibility of the existence of a deity? By analogy, if every person who claimed to have seen or photographed a UFO was shown to be a crazy liar, can we conclude from this that there is no intelligent life anywhere else in the universe?
Of course, there is a major difference between examining the possibility of the existence of a deity, and examining the possibility of the existence of aliens. As science and technology progress, we may actually be able to prove the existence or non-existence on of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. However, the existence of a deity cannot be proven or disproven through empirical science or deductive reasoning, simply because it is a metaphysical question and not an empirical one.
So, for the time being, we have to admit that we cannot either prove or disprove the existence of a deity.
Now someone mentioned the idea of religion being ideology- and perhaps it is. But I would hesitate in saying that anyone can possibly be free of ideology or subjective analysis. For example, one commentator above said that "religion has been one of the biggest sources of drama, faggotry, and unwarranted self-importance...." But isn't this view itself an ideology? Haven't they made a subjective value judgement? First of all, they condemn religion as being a source of "faggotry"- a derogatory word for homosexuality. So they have immediately made the value judgement that homosexuality is a "bad" thing and religion is responsible for it. And they make this claim despite the scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetically pre-determined. You see, ideology triumphs yet again.
I just wonder whether empirical questions need to be answered empirically, and metaphysical questions answered metaphysically. In other words, if you're going to be scientific, then be scientific- don't make claims you can't substantiate such as the non-existence of a deity or that homosexuality is "faggoty".

You are right on Anonymous. Winston, tell me whic...

2010-07-26T15:35:22.905-04:00

You are right on Anonymous.

Winston, tell me which one didn't fail humanity?

Humans have made the religion, worshiped it, killed for it and still continues to do so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w57JLmY5dmw

2010-07-26T02:02:17.695-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w57JLmY5dmw

yeah. Agreed. i was just trying to sound a little ...

2010-07-26T00:35:22.197-04:00

yeah. Agreed. i was just trying to sound a little polite.

Also i take back..
[[To stop web]] sites such as those appearing and stereotyping islam. Islam need to do something within it's ranks if it wants the world to accept them as a peace loving religion.

No, do not stop. As long as atrocities continue may a thousand more websites appear. Stereotyping-fair enough. I have many muslim friends who are enraged with all senseless killing.
Oh and i have many muslim friends who enjoy watching pornographic films. I don't frown upon them if they do. Some even like a drink of alcohol from time to time and i got more respect for these people being human than all the nutjobs who post threatening replies on this great blog.

oh, i would probably offend them with the ED links so that is why i am going Anonymous. Besides i did not write the articles and they are hilarious i admit. But like the cartoon we don't take them seriously.

If you actually bother to read any of ED you will find that no group, sect, religion, community, race, nationality is free from the ridicule of ED. Even the region i was born comes under fire and it's funny. All the stereotypes of my people are amplified to the max and i'm laughing with them.

Also like all good satire it's based on FACT with a good dosage of fiction included.

Well you know what they say...

2010-07-25T23:25:34.639-04:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

"KILL ME" Figure of speech. Just shake ...

2010-07-25T03:36:22.378-04:00

"KILL ME"

Figure of speech. Just shake your fist and curse me instead.

"Pick the greatest threat to Islam's"...

2010-07-25T02:33:10.362-04:00

"Pick the greatest threat to Islam's" image says it all. Would descriptions from EncyclopediaDramatica exist if there were no radicals? The venom, profanity and satire of ED reflect the image and ideology shown by radicals on a daily basis. Humans have always satirized events from the dawn of mankind. People laugh at tragic events as a way of overcoming them. Fear is the enemy of mankind.

Of course the ED pages do not represent a full 100% of Islam but unfortunately there are a few whom take their views to the extreme and so hence they will be satirized, not by just ED but thousands of many others.

To stop web sites such as those appearing and stereotyping islam. Islam need to do something within it's ranks if it wants the world to accept them as a peace loving religion.

After all it is not just about Islam or any other religion. It is about the whole of the human race living in peace and harmony. When does that begin, when we can all live in a free world regardless of whom you follow or not.

Religion does not want a free world. After attending religious classes in my youth. I began to think that Heaven was created out of fear of death. Give the masses something to believe in and you can control them or tell them they are going to HELL. The descriptions of Hell were obviously created by those lacking in imagination as is Heaven...

Angels with harps? 72 virgins? This obviously plays down to the male species' sexual fantasies. Sex sells.. even in Heaven. The greatest marketing technique ever created. Wow, if beer was widely available thousands of years ago, i guess that would be on offer too. Can you get pregnant in heaven or do they have the offer of contraception? Sorry, i'm being silly now.

So if i was to read a holy book does that give me the right to dictate how others live and that I can tell other that they are going to hell just because I have read that book and that they haven't? Of which in a scientific world the events which take place in these books defy logic and any sense of reality... and you're telling me that UFO's don't exist?

Sorry if i went on a wild one back then but to me..

"Religion is a severe mental illness created roughly 6000 years ago, at the same time as the Earth. Since then, religion has been one of the biggest sources of drama, faggotry, and unwarranted self-importance in the world today, secondary only to the internet."

Has never sounded so true.

Hey free thought. KILL ME!

oh - I thought that the contributor you are talkin...

2010-07-24T16:39:43.276-04:00

oh - I thought that the contributor you are talking about, was mentioning the post above his/hers which was fully of profanities and venom, rather than anything you had written or included - I guess it shows how easily it is to get issues misinterpreted