Islamaphobia?

[Onnedheil]

So, as feminists, women, fighting against patriarchy, against rape culture against male violence to women. My question is this.

Are we suddenly now supposed to be supporting a religion that is an actual rape culture, Openly accepted paedophilia, actual supremacy of toxic masculinity an actual patriarchy Which is responsible for female genital mutilation , based on a the word of a paedophile warmonger who propagates a monotheist singular God who is male .

And when Anyone, speaks out about these things We're labelled as a racist and as islamaphobe and told to silence our voice for the religion of peace?

Have I ended up in the twilight zone or something?

Buffy - re "how atheism is understood, it's role in our culture."

You mean how you have misunderstood whaatheism is and continue to do.

"A pp said this: An anthropologist looking from outside might well describe these as a system of belief... In that sense, I think it might be fair to describe atheism as part of a system of belief."

An atheist is simply someone who says "Your God story makes no sense, so I'm not buying it". It is an absence if belief. Whoever you are quoting is wrong, as so are you.

"Your conviction of absence, absence of belief?"

Does that even make sense to you?

I really think you need to read & learn a bit about the concepts & arguments of various atheists. You are coming from a position of ignorance and making assumptions that are false.

"if you were to ask an atheist to explain why they do not believe in God, there would be an explanation."

Yes, that there is not a shred of evidence to warrant belief in a God.

It is not a belief system to recognize that the Emperir has no clothes. It is not a belief system to say "Your story is ludicrous and you have no proof, so I'm not believing it".

That the golden rule is based on kindness to others and not the glorification of the self is largely because of social construction based on centuries of religious teaching.

We may say do unto to others as they would do to you but what about when they are in a situation when they cant ever do unto you. not physically or materially able? the destitute, or the elderly, the infirm? the one whose mind has gone with dementia? its largely because we live in a Christian society that stopped disabled babies or cripples being left out in the cold, otherwise logically, and coldly, we wouldnt use up resources on those that cannot put back into the collective pot. its this idea that every human life has value that the message of Jesus picked up so many followers in Europe in the early days before Christianity became the main religion.

Likewise, in Islam the idea that a Creator God stands as surety over each human being, either to reward for doing good between each other or to avenge for bad done between each other, this made trust grow between large groups of strangers from different tribes, ethnicities, family groups etc. it wasnt uncommon then as now to join the religion for the social network - having a larger group of people to share food and shelter with and watch your back and who can help you in difficult times. not based on blood or language ties but on rituals and belief in the One God, not just the poor, the weak, but lonely people, or people without the membership of a strong warrior tribe (then) or a rich noble family with lots of connections.

ok in the west we've largely scaled the ladder and kicked it away now because of large secular government that runs welfare and security but the progression of humanity from tight knit small hunter gatherer groups to the large anonymous and cooperative societies of today is because of religion. specifically, the organised religions with the 'Big Gods' that still exist today from the huge plethora of belief systems in the past. as cote put it, the idea of a "creator God who checks on you to see if you're good and will put you in heaven after death if you just believe", omniscient - knowing all, omnipresent - always there, and omnipotent - having unlimited power - which many scoff at now, helped to ensure cooperation between constantly expanding groups.

I guess you thought I was being condescending Buffy but that wasn't the case.

Your posts on this tread show that you really don't understand what an atheist is. You really do need to understand what people mean when they say "I am an atheist" and forget your wrong assumptions about belief system built around evolution etc.

Like Bertrand, I would like to understand why you don't seem to be interested when atheists explain what atheism is, and why you keep telling them that they are wrong, that atheism is a belief system.

I didn't say you did.

Do you read my posts before you reply to them?

You don't have to use the word "wrong". People are telling you that an atheist is simply someone who doesn't buy into the God story so it is a lack of belief, and you keep telling them that your view is that it is a belief system.

Lack of food isn't a meal, not having a hobby isn't a hobby in itself, lack of academic qualifications is not a degree, and lack of belief is not a belief system.

Can you please give a sign that you understand this so we can move on?

I'm an atheist. I think Jesus was a historic figure and I do love science more than Jesus

And I'm educated enough (by Buffy amongst others) to know that repeatable, objective experiments are only the favoured methodology for finding truth. Lived experience and the reasons why people think/believe/disbelieve how they do also matter.

You are right slug, it's not different.

Côte, if you want posters to engage with you, it helps if you are less rude to them.

Buffy , you are trying to come from this from the view there must be reasons not to believe. Whereas for me it is simply a case of there never was any reason to believe.

So far as whether we are just blobs of life, we are and we aren't. I don't believe in afterlife. But everything we do in this life matters so that extent the "afterlife" is not what happens to us after we die but what happens here and in the future.

There are various ways to atheism, though - being born to atheist parents and never buying in; getting and then rejecting a religious method at school; lifelong belief shaken by tragedy; lifelong belief ousted by educational input or other realisation.

I'm sure all the atheists involved feel differently about their atheism, not least if they moved from church going to not.

I don't think I am being rude One, but thanks for caring.

7days no, religiosity and spiritually is not real. Region is part of society in the same way politics is. It helps with social cohesion. It is one of those things that make people stick together because of a social norm. People Amy agree on it because, 1- the they were socially engineered too, 2- they chose what will explain something missing in their lives.
The lack of understanding of the world is a big player in understanding religion.
It is also another way people are controlled. Opium for the masses will rink a bell.

Spiritually and religiosity is that proses where people are practicing religion or try to find some form of help from something of a higher being. I would assume with spiritually is to do with things Beyond the human realm. More about your soul and whether it has connection to other energies outside the body.
There is no fact for the existence of the soul.

What your probably trying to say is that humans have a quest to know more and in turn that leaves a void. This is where region comes in and fills that void. It will explain why you are not doing that well in certain areas. God, evil, bad energy and so on are all to blame for human era, or breaking the agreed social norm.

Social norms are relative. That is why you have different religious groups,politics, and culture.

OneMore is absolutely correct so I suppose atheists who were believers but stopped believing would able to have a conversation with Buffy about why they did so.

Apparently my husband was quite religious as a teenager, we've never really discussed it beyond he said it was a phase he went through. He must have presumably had a reason to believe at one point but from the way he talks about it I don't get the sense he actively found reasons not to believe, but, like me could find no reason to continue with his belief.

Also, people would love the comfort of knowing that when we die it's not the end. We live on somewhere else. This includes loved ones. Religion is a very good provider and it's what it thrives on.

Even those who believe in nature this and that. In one with nature and so on. The same theory still applies. They all understand that they will be decay and be joining all the other plant life and animals.

It's no different to reincarnation, the same thing applies.

I come from the view that people have reasons for everything that they do. We are complex, social beings who do things for complex and often social reasons

I don't agree that applies universally. It certainly does not apply in my case as to why I have never believed in a god.

I've read theories that there is a faith gene- if that were true it would make perfect sense for me. I definitely don't have a single faith gene. That makes more sense to me than saying the 7 year old me made a decision for complex and social reasons to be an atheist.

This is what happens when evolving primate neurostructures over-emphasise pattern analysis.

A lot of leaping around, a lot of figurative flying fecal matter.

Fascinating debate though.

"Yes, I understand that the way Bert regards her atheism is that it is not part of a system of belief. I can also grasp the rhetorical strategy of atheism as not skiing."

I don't doubt for a second that you understand these things. What I find hard to grasp is that you seem tho think that I must be wrong or that the strategy is fallacious.

I was brought up in a free thinking Bernard Shaw reading, port and walnuts sort of socialist home. My parents were atheists, although in later life my mother identified as a humanist. My father said that any lingering traces of his childhood faith were stamped out in the Pacific in the early 1940s. I was brought up to believe that agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position to take. However in adult life. I came to think that, as the possibility of the existence of God is so microscopically small, and that from a "small p" political point of view, agnosticism gives succor to theists, it is important to identify as an atheist.

I do not believe that there is a god or gods. That is what an atheist is. I believe lots of other things- that humanity is basically good, that parsnips are delicious, that homeopaths should be run out of town, that children have a right to childhood, that Idris Elba is beautiful, that old fashioned one nation Tories are more honest and.acceptable than Blairite Labour people, that being gay is no big deal, that abortion on demand is a basic human right although I personally could not have one, that early and detailed sex education is essential ..........I could go on. Not a single one of these things has anything to do with my atheism, and it would be perfectly possible to be an atheist and believe the exact opposite.

If I was a theist, my views on many things on that list would be informed by the requirements of my faith. My belief system. Except the parsnips. Probably. Unless I was Edmund Blackadder's aunt.