Religion

[crazydil]

There have been a few threads in regards to religion and without exception there are always a few posters who cannot help themselves from being disrespectful.

Is it difficult to get a point across without a slight dig? Criticism is part of a healthy discussion but to be so rude about something that is very important to some. ..is it really needed?
I've never felt the need to be rude about anyones belief no matter how strange I find it to be.

So basically aibu in expecting respect in any conversation

ErrolTheDragon Most atheists I know are technically agnostics

atheism and agnosticism are two different things, you can be both, either one or neither. Most theists are also agnostics. Not many intelligent people (including Richard Dawkins) would be so certain as to claim to be gnostic, which occurs mostly in fundamentalist theists.

The only countries where hijab is mandatory are Saudi and Iran and a significant proportion of those countries women wear it through choice anyway

My hand actually flew to my face in shock.

Did you see the undercover documentary earlier this year I think on itv.

The people of saudi are repressed and terrified! We saw footage of women being randomly attacked, blood running into a drain from the public slaughter square, desperate relatives trying to find out where their loved ones have been taken or even if they are still alive, taken by the state for minor indiscretions.
We saw footage of bodies, being hung by the side of the road .

We saw women undercover - doing sneaky driving.

We saw tiny children being indoctrinated to hate Jews in school books actual leaning books!

Your idea of choice and mine is very very different.

I dont know how to copy but google Iran 1960 - and look at the those pictures!
uk.businessinsider.com/iran-before-the-revolution-in-photos-2015-4?r=US&IR=T/#ke-ataturk-reza-shah-attempted-to-make-religious-observation-subservient-to-the-state-8

www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-4148684/Stunning-photos-reveal-life-Iran-revolution.html

The one thing that unites all religions is their ability to minimize its negative aspects.

Most atheists I know are technically agnostics

no they aren't.

Richard Dawkins is a self declared agnostic. I would be because of the can't prove a negative thing. But I can't be bothered. I can't prove that the sun will come up tomorrow, or if I let go of my coffee mug it will hit the ground either. But I know they will. Angels on the head of a pin stuff.

SunSeptember My views on Saudi and Iran are based on my experiences living/studying there, not from an ITV documentary and I have never met a Saudi person who I could call repressed or terrified.
If you are interested in learning about women in Iran you might like a book called Jewels of Allah by Nina Ansary, I think you would find it very informative.

'Most atheists I know are technically agnostics

no they aren't.'

Er, yes they are. As user clarified, you can be both. For all practical purposes it doesn't matter.

'Had God willed, they would not have taken others besides Him in worship. And We have not made you a watcher over them nor are you set over them to dispose of their affairs.
(6:107)
''And do not insult those they worship other than God, in case they then insult God in enmity without knowledge...''
(6:108)

From those two verses in the Quran I find its important not just to respect the person with the belief - theyve exercised their autonomy to believe as they will - but also respect what they hold sacred. As a basic courtesy: do not insult their Gods so that they do not insult your God.

That is not just the basic reserve towards the other abrahamic faiths which the etiquette for debate is set out in other parts of the quran. cant think of them at the moment. but chapter 6:107-108 is specifically to the non monotheistic religions. Verse 108 says '...those they worship' those: plural. if one wants to debate/discuss/ question, one can but without reviling the other person's gods etc which because they would be hurt by could cause them to curse God. I see the courtesy as 'do unto to others' - as serious as I wish to be about my faith others will be about theirs.

To me, no matter how different a belief/faith sounds I keep in mind the minimum ''...And We have not made you a watcher over them nor are you set over them to dispose of their affairs''. (6:107) Which is something over zealous people - of faith as well as atheism - fall into thinking they're responsible for 'saving' people from.

and i know its fucking ironic with all the stuff ISIS and violent extremist islam does in the world, but freedom of belief is pretty much entrenched in the Quran.

"There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. " (2:256)

"Had your Lord willed, all those on earth would have believed altogether. Would you then (O Muhammad), compel people, so that they become believers?" (10:99)

''Had God willed, they would not have taken others besides Him in worship. And We have not made you a watcher over them nor are you set over them to dispose of their affairs." (6:107)

"Say: it is the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve" (18:29)

"Verily, this is an admonition, therefore whosoever will, let him take a Path to His Lord" (73:19)

"Say: I ask of you no reward for this, save that whosoever will may choose a way unto his Lord." (25:57)

"Nay, but verily it (the Quran) is an Admonishment, So let whosoever will pay heed to it," (80:11-12)

Actually, having just re-read a bit of the wiki on agnosticism, in particular some of what Huxley (who invented the term) says, maybe it does matter. Can you have a truly rational debate with anyone who isn't agnostic?

Richard Dawkins wrote that you could put people in categories from 1-7. So 1 would be people who are 100% certain that God exists, 4 would be people who are 50/50 and 7 would be people who are 100% certain that God doesn't exist. He said that you would find very few people in the number 7 category because most rational people realise that you can't prove the non existence of anything but you will find plenty of people in category number 1 based on little more than the fact that they 'just know'.
I have spent 20 years working in psychiatry and have met many delusional patients - ones who are absolutely 100% convinced that there are cameras in their house, that their spouse is poisoning their food, that they have a chip planted in their brain, that their husband/wife/mother/son has been replaced by an imposter, that they own the whole of the UK, that birds are sending them messages etc etc. The chance of reasoning them out of that belief was precisely zero. Someone's strength of conviction about a belief doesn't make it true.
rose with all your talk of 'what's all the fuss about evidence?', I hope that you're never charged with a crime you haven't committed. The jury might just say, 'Sod the evidence. We just know that she's guilty.

I am both atheist and agnostic. Really winds me up when people don't know the difference between the concepts.

For clarity: Not people generally, but people who choose to enter a discussion using terms they don't grasp.

ErrolTheDragon It might be easier to have a debate with a gnostic, idk, but they would claim knowledge rather than believe and surly that would mean they should have more evidence to come to that conclusion?

Yea MaidOfStars like having to have a discussion about christian privilege and spending the whole time trying to explain that atheism isn't a religion.

My views on Saudi and Iran are based on my experiences living/studying there, not from an ITV documentary and I have never met a Saudi person who I could call repressed or terrified.

I have never been there, but I find it hard to believe that women don't feel oppressed there given, at the very least, they can't drive.

I have met one person from SA and he was a gay man. Let me tell you that he was pretty thankful to have left.

I have never met a Saudi person who I could call repressed or terrified

I am surprised StatelessPrincess has never heard of Raif Badawi even if she has never met him.

Ten years in jail and 1,000 lashes: why we must defend Saudi blogger Raif Badawi

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/18/raif-badawi-saudi-arabia-blogger?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Ten years in jail and 1,000 lashes: why The theocratic and repressive regime in Riyadh has no regard for the western values and human rights we hold dear

It was the fifth anniversary yesterday of the arrest of theSaudi blogger Raif Badawi, whose supposed crime was to argue for secularism, democracy and human rights. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes – a punishment that amounts to death by torture – although only 50 lashes were inflicted on him in the one session. Medical opinion was that he would not survive the remainder of that part of his sentence

And for the avoidance of doubt... yes, currently, various Islamic sects are probably committing the most and the worst persecutions (against Christians, atheists, other types of Muslims

Doesn't look like that to me. Lets take a quick look at the world. There's France against Mali. There's America/Britian/Australia/NATO against Afghanistan/Syria/Iraq /Iran. There's the massacre and huge exodus of muslims from CAR by Christians of CAR. Situation in the Philippines/Palestine/Burma.

Looks to me that muslims are being killed/tortured in HUGE numbers and mainly by the followers of Christ.

Not saying that muslims aren't killing either. But if I were to choose a religion that's involved in mass murder, in the recent past or the present, I wouldn't be choosing Islam.

habanero Not driving wasn't a problem for me or any of the women I know there as we were in a large city and had drivers and/or access to taxis. I can imagine for women who don't, or who live in more rural areas it must be really inconvenient. I completely agree that Saudi is an awful place for gay people to live in and so is the Muslim world in general unfortunately, I would dearly love to see that change.

Lass I have heard of Raif Badawi and I don't agree with his sentence.

I have never said that oppression of women (and men) doesn't happen in Saudi only that I believe oppressed people are the minority and that I don't know any myself. I actually really enjoyed living there and would happily go back. To be fair things that many people (including some Muslims) would find confining, like wearing an abaya or praying 5 times a day are positive things to me.
I also feel like I should point out though that I do not think that the Saudi government/royal family represent Islam well. I think they've proved that beyond any doubt recently with their failure to respond to the refugee crisis when they have enough money and resources to improve the lives of millions. There are many things I love about Saudi but the government isn't one of them.
Muslims can be unjust but I don't believe Islam is.

So basically Stateless Saudi is fine for well off, urban-based , heterosexual, religiously inclined women who can afford a personal driver and don't rock the boat.

Saudi is an awful place for gay people to live in - so presumably you don't know any gay people given you "have never met a Saudi person whom you could call repressed or terrified?"

Lass The argument that Islam oppresses women because Saudi is untrue and very tired. And no, I dont know any gay Saudis.

I find it interesting that Muslim women are always being told that we are subjugated, that we don't have a voice and that we need to speak up for ourselves. And then we do and nobody wants to listen or if they do its usually just to tell us that we're wrong or brainwashed so our experiences don't count, that we cant possibly be happy even if we think we are.
People, especially western atheist women, don't want to hear what we have to say unless we're agreeing with them. But you think it's Muslim men who are oppressive 😭

emoji fail but that one's more accurate anyway!