6 ms·

Eventually things will change. Remember Christianity used to be very hostile to religions in time past (Galileo). Most Christian groups now are often hostile to

by rmc 14y ago

Eventually things will change. Remember Christianity used to be very hostile to religions in time past (Galileo). Most Christian groups now are often hostile to science that disagrees with them from Creationists & evolution to Catholics and security.

_wwz4 14y ago
Remember Christianity used to be very hostile to religions in time past (Galileo) I've seen this speculation that this is just a phase that Islam is going through. When Christianity was going through a similar conflict with Science, there were no real fruits of Science to validate it as a system of learning about reality. Christianity came first and had its roots firmly planted before that upstart Science came along. The power struggle was understandable in that progression. These days, the results of Science are all around us. We have computers, cell phones, nuclear power, and robots exploring other planets. There's really no excuse for the utter dismissal of reality exhibited by large swathes of the Islamic world. Islam doesn't just demonstrate a different stage of maturity for a religion. Islam demonstrates a radically staunch level of belligerence for a religion. There's no real reason to believe that it's going to outgrow it.
- rosser 14y ago
  Islam demonstrates a radically staunch level of belligerence for a religion. And all Muslims are suicide bombers, right? You're making an incredibly common mistake here: judging the religion in its entirety — some quarter of the human population — by the behaviors of a very scant minority. Yes, it happens that the minority in question hold positions of power, but are they behaving that way because they believe that way, or because it seems to help them keep that power? (Put more pointedly, are they pandering to a pre-existing, cultural ignorance, or are they manufacturing an ignorance that's easier to control?) Most Muslims aren't belligerent. Islam is fundamentally a religion of peace, and only justifies violence in direct response to direct attack, whether against the individual, or against the faith. Most Muslims are in the unfortunate position of being kept from the knowledge that would allow them to participate fully in the modern world. They're being kept from that knowledge not for anything to do with the religion, itself (though the religion is often twisted to justify their being kept that way), but to preserve the temporal power of the people that happen to have that power right now. So, yeah. Let's blame Islam for that.
  - _wwz4 14y ago
    Most Muslims aren't belligerent. or against the faith Wrong answer. When "against the faith" includes calling for the death or even censorship of cartoonists in other countries who draw disrespectful pictures of a religion's "prophet", the belligerent label is very justified. And all Muslims are suicide bombers, right? I didn't say "all". I believe the words I used were "large swathes", meaning enough of those societies to dictate policies that are indistinguishable from the nut job radicals that you claim don't represent everyone. For example, see the stories regarding the destruction of ancient monuments in Afghanistan. See the killing of Coptic Christians in Egypt. See the jailing/killing of Christian preachers in Iran. Islam is fundamentally a religion of peace That's a bumper sticker and something politicians have to say because they rarely speak simple truths. The Koran is pretty clear regarding the need to commit violence toward infidels. The Judeo/Christian texts (the Bible) aren't a whole lot better, although the mixed books and accounts in it are so imprecise, contradictory and watered down that there isn't a consistent call for domination of others in the world.
    - rosser 14y ago
      If it helps you feel better about your prejudices, you go right on ahead and keep judging a billion and a half people by the actions of ... wait, how many orders of magnitude fewer was that, again? Let's see... Taliban? 20-50,000, by the US military's own estimates. Hezbollah? 1,000 active, with another 6-10,000 volunteer fighters. Hamas' militant wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades? Maybe another 10,000. No, that's by no means all the bad apples in the Muslim world, but the remainder are even smaller and less well-organized. That should be enough to give some sense of the actual numbers of actual "bad guys". So, summing the three most widely-known militant Islamist groups, we haven't yet broken a six figure count of people, and you'll apparently happily judge a population five orders of magnitude larger by their actions. Let's also judge all Jews (some 14 million) by the actions of Bat Ayin, a comparable ratio (to within an order of magnitude, anyway), shall we? Let's judge all Christians by the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church and Anders Behring Breivik. Or, how about this for a novel idea: let's not judge anyone by the behaviors of someone else. The Koran is pretty clear regarding the need to commit violence toward infidels. The Qu'ran is clear about justifying the defensive use of violence. It's also very clear that violence must never be used against the innocent, women, children, anyone with whom you have a treaty or pact, anyone who ceases their active attack against you, or anyone otherwise not actively involved in actively attacking you. And, no: "attacking" doesn't mean calling names. It means physical violence. As for "violence towards infidels", I assume that like most people with this attitude about Islam, you're referring (knowingly or otherwise) to 9:005, which says, in part, "...kill the idolaters wherever you find them..." ("idolaters" is regularly mis-translated as "infidels"). What everyone blithely (or worse, deliberately) ignores about that verse is that in the verses immediately preceding it, "idolaters" are explained to be people who had declared war on Islam, and were actively, militarily attacking Mohammad and his followers — which is what is meant by attacks "against the faith". The verse is also typically shortened to omit the fact that a Muslim should only "kill the idolaters" after suffering their attacks through the holy months, during which fighting of any kind is not allowed. But what about 2:190 "Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors."? That sounds awfully bloodthirsty to me... Look, we can go 'round and 'round about this, but I'm only trying to make a simple, specific point: you're judging a huge portion of the human race by the actions of a tiny portion of the human race. Should all Americans be judged by the fact that a small number of Americans lied us into invading another country about a decade ago?
- kamaal 14y ago
  >>Islam doesn't just demonstrate a different stage of maturity for a religion. Islam demonstrates a radically staunch level of belligerence for a religion. There's no real reason to believe that it's going to outgrow it. Don't forget that Islam is nearly some 600 years younger than Christianity and please don't equate Christianity with the west. This is so contrastingly different, Islam is still predominantly present in regions from where it spread. What you know of Islamic countries today is hardly a measure of Islam because the mix of culture and religion there is so perfect you won't be able to tell one from the other. If you compare the Muslims of Arab with somewhere like India, you will wonder if the Muslims in India have anything common at all, apart from worshiping a common god. Now compare this with Muslims in Afghanistan, you can't really compare a culture of a warrior race(who happen to be Muslims) with some Muslim in Australia.
littlegiantcap 14y ago
Catholics believe in evolution. With the catholic interpretation of the bible, science is generally seen as the how and the religious side as the why.
- camus 14y ago
  evolution is not a belief , it is a scientific fact. And the genesis is in direct contradiction with the theory of evolution.
  - littlegiantcap 14y ago
    Yeah, well if we want to split hairs Evolution is theory. Granted a pretty good one, but still. Another thing is you're assuming Catholics are biblical literalist (hint: we aren't). Think of some things in the bible (part of the book of genesis for instance) as more of fables or stories intended to teach us lessons.
  - rmc 14y ago
    Catholics don't believe in what is literally the Bible says. I they have the church, priests etc to interpret it. Catholics used to not read the Bible, there were literally wars fought over different groups about whether the common man should be allowed to read the Bible.
- rmc 14y ago
  Yep Catholicism allows evolution. However Catholics fight science that says anything about sex, science says condoms are effective at stopping STDs incl. AIDS, but Catholics disagree. Science says that by almost any measure of relationship happiness same sex couple are just as loving as different sex couples, but Catholics fight that. Science says master nation can be helpful, Catholics think it's always bad, etc.
  - littlegiantcap 14y ago
    The pope has said condoms can be used to help stop the spread of aids in some circumstances. I wouldn't really classify homosexual marriage as "science" but the catholic prohibition on it deals more with natural law and sex having to have both the dual purposes of procreation and the loving aspect as well. We're quickly wading into the philosophical belief side of things. My entire point was essentially that while some catholic beliefs may conflict with what you believe they don't reject scientific evidence out of hand like people seemed to be suggesting.
defrost 14y ago
> Remember Christianity used to be very hostile to religions in time past (Galileo). ? The Catholics were extremely hostile towards forks in religion - Heresy got you the full weight of the ban hammer. Christians were a fairly broad group, larger than just the Roman Catholics. As for Galileo, he wasn't a religion he was a man and some other men (including one Pope more than the other Pope) really didn't like him. This wasn't so much Christianity or more specifically Roman Catholicism, being opposed to Science, more some people in power not likely someone they regarded as a disagreeable dick. There were supporters of heliocentric models within the church at the time, supporters of Galileo were harder to come by.
- redwood 14y ago
  When he said "religions" he must have mean't "scientists"
  - defrost 14y ago
    Once upon a time you could argue that most "scientists" were either of a church or mosque or supported by such an institution, for example Gregor Mendel is generally described as both a scientist and as an Augustinian friar. Cathedrals didn't build themselves or innovate their own designs; contemplating the natural wonders was once considered equivalent to looking upon the works of God. I'm not religious, my passions are science, mathematics, history (, and the Oxford comma); the narrative that "Religion Hates Science" has as much depth as spelling Microsoft with a $ or describing Americans as sheeple.
  - rmc 14y ago
    Yep. Damn you auto-correct!

by rmc 14y ago

_wwz4 14y ago

Remember Christianity used to be very hostile to religions in time past (Galileo) I've seen this speculation that this is just a phase that Islam is going through. When Christianity was going through a similar conflict with Science, there were no real fruits of Science to validate it as a system of learning about reality. Christianity came first and had its roots firmly planted before that upstart Science came along. The power struggle was understandable in that progression. These days, the results of Science are all around us. We have computers, cell phones, nuclear power, and robots exploring other planets. There's really no excuse for the utter dismissal of reality exhibited by large swathes of the Islamic world. Islam doesn't just demonstrate a different stage of maturity for a religion. Islam demonstrates a radically staunch level of belligerence for a religion. There's no real reason to believe that it's going to outgrow it.

rosser 14y ago
Islam demonstrates a radically staunch level of belligerence for a religion. And all Muslims are suicide bombers, right? You're making an incredibly common mistake here: judging the religion in its entirety — some quarter of the human population — by the behaviors of a very scant minority. Yes, it happens that the minority in question hold positions of power, but are they behaving that way because they believe that way, or because it seems to help them keep that power? (Put more pointedly, are they pandering to a pre-existing, cultural ignorance, or are they manufacturing an ignorance that's easier to control?) Most Muslims aren't belligerent. Islam is fundamentally a religion of peace, and only justifies violence in direct response to direct attack, whether against the individual, or against the faith. Most Muslims are in the unfortunate position of being kept from the knowledge that would allow them to participate fully in the modern world. They're being kept from that knowledge not for anything to do with the religion, itself (though the religion is often twisted to justify their being kept that way), but to preserve the temporal power of the people that happen to have that power right now. So, yeah. Let's blame Islam for that.
- _wwz4 14y ago
  Most Muslims aren't belligerent. or against the faith Wrong answer. When "against the faith" includes calling for the death or even censorship of cartoonists in other countries who draw disrespectful pictures of a religion's "prophet", the belligerent label is very justified. And all Muslims are suicide bombers, right? I didn't say "all". I believe the words I used were "large swathes", meaning enough of those societies to dictate policies that are indistinguishable from the nut job radicals that you claim don't represent everyone. For example, see the stories regarding the destruction of ancient monuments in Afghanistan. See the killing of Coptic Christians in Egypt. See the jailing/killing of Christian preachers in Iran. Islam is fundamentally a religion of peace That's a bumper sticker and something politicians have to say because they rarely speak simple truths. The Koran is pretty clear regarding the need to commit violence toward infidels. The Judeo/Christian texts (the Bible) aren't a whole lot better, although the mixed books and accounts in it are so imprecise, contradictory and watered down that there isn't a consistent call for domination of others in the world.
  - rosser 14y ago
    If it helps you feel better about your prejudices, you go right on ahead and keep judging a billion and a half people by the actions of ... wait, how many orders of magnitude fewer was that, again? Let's see... Taliban? 20-50,000, by the US military's own estimates. Hezbollah? 1,000 active, with another 6-10,000 volunteer fighters. Hamas' militant wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades? Maybe another 10,000. No, that's by no means all the bad apples in the Muslim world, but the remainder are even smaller and less well-organized. That should be enough to give some sense of the actual numbers of actual "bad guys". So, summing the three most widely-known militant Islamist groups, we haven't yet broken a six figure count of people, and you'll apparently happily judge a population five orders of magnitude larger by their actions. Let's also judge all Jews (some 14 million) by the actions of Bat Ayin, a comparable ratio (to within an order of magnitude, anyway), shall we? Let's judge all Christians by the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church and Anders Behring Breivik. Or, how about this for a novel idea: let's not judge anyone by the behaviors of someone else. The Koran is pretty clear regarding the need to commit violence toward infidels. The Qu'ran is clear about justifying the defensive use of violence. It's also very clear that violence must never be used against the innocent, women, children, anyone with whom you have a treaty or pact, anyone who ceases their active attack against you, or anyone otherwise not actively involved in actively attacking you. And, no: "attacking" doesn't mean calling names. It means physical violence. As for "violence towards infidels", I assume that like most people with this attitude about Islam, you're referring (knowingly or otherwise) to 9:005, which says, in part, "...kill the idolaters wherever you find them..." ("idolaters" is regularly mis-translated as "infidels"). What everyone blithely (or worse, deliberately) ignores about that verse is that in the verses immediately preceding it, "idolaters" are explained to be people who had declared war on Islam, and were actively, militarily attacking Mohammad and his followers — which is what is meant by attacks "against the faith". The verse is also typically shortened to omit the fact that a Muslim should only "kill the idolaters" after suffering their attacks through the holy months, during which fighting of any kind is not allowed. But what about 2:190 "Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors."? That sounds awfully bloodthirsty to me... Look, we can go 'round and 'round about this, but I'm only trying to make a simple, specific point: you're judging a huge portion of the human race by the actions of a tiny portion of the human race. Should all Americans be judged by the fact that a small number of Americans lied us into invading another country about a decade ago?
kamaal 14y ago
>>Islam doesn't just demonstrate a different stage of maturity for a religion. Islam demonstrates a radically staunch level of belligerence for a religion. There's no real reason to believe that it's going to outgrow it. Don't forget that Islam is nearly some 600 years younger than Christianity and please don't equate Christianity with the west. This is so contrastingly different, Islam is still predominantly present in regions from where it spread. What you know of Islamic countries today is hardly a measure of Islam because the mix of culture and religion there is so perfect you won't be able to tell one from the other. If you compare the Muslims of Arab with somewhere like India, you will wonder if the Muslims in India have anything common at all, apart from worshiping a common god. Now compare this with Muslims in Afghanistan, you can't really compare a culture of a warrior race(who happen to be Muslims) with some Muslim in Australia.

littlegiantcap 14y ago

Catholics believe in evolution. With the catholic interpretation of the bible, science is generally seen as the how and the religious side as the why.

camus 14y ago
evolution is not a belief , it is a scientific fact. And the genesis is in direct contradiction with the theory of evolution.
- littlegiantcap 14y ago
  Yeah, well if we want to split hairs Evolution is theory. Granted a pretty good one, but still. Another thing is you're assuming Catholics are biblical literalist (hint: we aren't). Think of some things in the bible (part of the book of genesis for instance) as more of fables or stories intended to teach us lessons.
- rmc 14y ago
  Catholics don't believe in what is literally the Bible says. I they have the church, priests etc to interpret it. Catholics used to not read the Bible, there were literally wars fought over different groups about whether the common man should be allowed to read the Bible.
rmc 14y ago
Yep Catholicism allows evolution. However Catholics fight science that says anything about sex, science says condoms are effective at stopping STDs incl. AIDS, but Catholics disagree. Science says that by almost any measure of relationship happiness same sex couple are just as loving as different sex couples, but Catholics fight that. Science says master nation can be helpful, Catholics think it's always bad, etc.
- littlegiantcap 14y ago
  The pope has said condoms can be used to help stop the spread of aids in some circumstances. I wouldn't really classify homosexual marriage as "science" but the catholic prohibition on it deals more with natural law and sex having to have both the dual purposes of procreation and the loving aspect as well. We're quickly wading into the philosophical belief side of things. My entire point was essentially that while some catholic beliefs may conflict with what you believe they don't reject scientific evidence out of hand like people seemed to be suggesting.

defrost 14y ago

> Remember Christianity used to be very hostile to religions in time past (Galileo). ? The Catholics were extremely hostile towards forks in religion - Heresy got you the full weight of the ban hammer. Christians were a fairly broad group, larger than just the Roman Catholics. As for Galileo, he wasn't a religion he was a man and some other men (including one Pope more than the other Pope) really didn't like him. This wasn't so much Christianity or more specifically Roman Catholicism, being opposed to Science, more some people in power not likely someone they regarded as a disagreeable dick. There were supporters of heliocentric models within the church at the time, supporters of Galileo were harder to come by.

redwood 14y ago
When he said "religions" he must have mean't "scientists"
- defrost 14y ago
  Once upon a time you could argue that most "scientists" were either of a church or mosque or supported by such an institution, for example Gregor Mendel is generally described as both a scientist and as an Augustinian friar. Cathedrals didn't build themselves or innovate their own designs; contemplating the natural wonders was once considered equivalent to looking upon the works of God. I'm not religious, my passions are science, mathematics, history (, and the Oxford comma); the narrative that "Religion Hates Science" has as much depth as spelling Microsoft with a $ or describing Americans as sheeple.
- rmc 14y ago
  Yep. Damn you auto-correct!