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?

It was easier to see through communist or Nazi psychopaths.

I expect that's why the populations of the Soviet republics, the European Eastern bloc countries, China, Germany, Austria and occupied Europe simply refused to cooperate with them.

"if religion didn't exist something else would be in place. One of the other things I can think of is superstition"

Because religion isn't superstition?

I guess I'm colourblind in that range.

"I think cote is right, I don't act the way I do because someone is watching me. I do it because I find it easier to be honest and truthful than lie "

Exactly. I also go out of my way to help people and find genuine happiness in making others happy. None of this has to do with a belief in a creator God who is keeping a ledger of my good/bad deeds but everything to do with how I want my life to be. Here, on this Earth and in my lifetime.

But what about when it isn't easier to help someone, and when it isn't easy to be truthful? What about when helping someone else doesn't make us happy, and when someone else's happiness conflicts with our own?

And if altruism is hard-wired into us then how come there is so much observable selfishness in the world?

The truth is that the test of anyone's morality - whether they have a faith or not - is in the hard cases, when your principles conflict with your inclinations, your happiness or your own self-interest.

One of the strengths of religion, in that context, is that it gives people a support for doing something that they don't very much want to do - whether it be through the idea of duty (as in Islam), or imitation (as in Christianity), or even through the hope of heaven (though in Christianity no-one gets to heaven because of their good acts).

It's harder to see where humanists and secularists get the support that helps them to live out their morality in hard cases - what gives them the motivation to act against their own interests or comfort in order to help others, say. I'm not saying it's not there - I imagine it may come from other people - but it's just less obvious.

I think you have rather a rosy view of people of faith, miminy.

Why do you say "humanists and secularists"? Do you mean "atheists"?

The political ideologies didn,t taken root the way spiritual ideologies have done.

"But what about when it isn't easier to help someone, and when it isn't easy to be truthful? What about when helping someone else doesn't make us happy, and when someone else's happiness conflicts with our own?"

What about it?

"And if altruism is hard-wired into us then how come there is so much observable selfishness in the world?"

There are loads of studies on this subject. I'm sure you can find a few on the internet.

"The truth is that the test of anyone's morality - whether they have a faith or not - is in the hard cases, when your principles conflict with your inclinations, your happiness or your own self-interest."

Are you talking about stuff like running into a burning building to save a stranger? I would have done it before I have had children, but now my primary responsibility is to them. I can't take chances that have a significant probability of leaving them without a mother. I can however, still go out of my way to give others, as long as it's not my children's only pair of shoes or only meal for the foreseeable future.

"One of the strengths of religion, in that context, is that it gives people a support for doing something that they don't very much want to do - whether it be through the idea of duty (as in Islam), or imitation (as in Christianity), or even through the hope of heaven (though in Christianity no-one gets to heaven because of their good acts)."

Personally, I don't think that sort of coercion is worth much. Sure, I'm happy that hoards of people who wouldn't otherwise be decent are being kept in check with religion, but my opinion of atheists who are decent because they want to be is much higher.

I think you have rather a rosy view of people of faith

Well, it's a counterbalance to some of the views expressed on this thread, then . Actually, I don't have such a rosy view of people as those who have claimed that altruism is hard-wired into human beings and that being honest and helpful is easy.

Humanists/secularists/atheists - really, the terminology isn't the point, is it? The point is, the test of morality is where it presses on your own comfort and self-interest. And the question is, what support do humanists/secularists/atheists have in those cases?

There are loads of studies on this subject. I'm sure you can find a few on the internet. = I am going to evade answering this point.

I can however, still go out of my way to give others, as long as it's not my children's only pair of shoes or only meal for the foreseeable future. Doesn't that boil down to, "I will go out of my way to give to others, as long as I don't actually have to disadvantage myself to do so"?

In what way do imitation and duty = coercion? A moral ideal or imperative is not the same thing as being forced to do something.

"Humanists/secularists/atheists - really, the terminology isn't the point, is it? "
Well, it does matter rather. I am two of those things but not the 3rd. There are Christian secularists. For two examples.

The political ideologies didn,t taken root the way spiritual ideologies have done.

Maybe because religion is true in a way that Nazism and Communism were not?

Which religion? Are they all true?

If you say so.

I think evolution would prove that being altruistic is not always best for the development of society. Yes, it would help glue society together but when it comes down to management it would crumble. Psychopaths seem to succeed far better than your normal ability person on the spectrum. It's not just humans that show this kind of behaviour. Territorial animals that mange to protect their young and the areas where they live I would assume is biased on who is the fittest both mentality and bodily. Apes as best example.

Not all good deeds are done for good motives. "Give with and hand and take with another " . "There is nothing for free ". It's not just talking about money but how society works. We, as a society know it. In my opinion there maybe very few people who do good deeds for the sake of it and not because they are just nice.

One of the things to always keep in mind is all that "no good deed ever goes unpunished". It seems that society can be untrusting when someone is too nice. We always ask why. One big story Which circulated the net and news was of the man who raised the wages of his workers and cut his to creat an equilibrium of fair wages. This backfired on him as a result. Some of the reason which were given by business owners taking their businesses away from him was because they thought he was not shrewd and ruthless enough to mange a business. They thought of it as being his luck of judgment.

www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/

www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-startling-accuracy-of-referring-to-politicians-as-psychopaths/260517/

Well, it does matter rather. I am two of those things but not the 3rd. There are Christian secularists. For two examples.

Ok fine. What support then can atheists rely on to help them live out their morality when it conflicts with their own interests? What gives them the motivation to act against their own comfort and happiness?

EnaSharplesHairnet the Communist leaders Stalin, mao, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, the Nazi party's Hitler, the secular arab dictators Ghaddafi, Sadaam, Ben Ali, Mubarak, all had entirely all encompassing power over their citizens each building up a cult of personality around themselves that pushed through and justified alot of their tyrannies. I actually see ISIS as more the descendents of Arab Baathism than anything to do with Islam -they are stuffed full to the rafters with Saddams old associates and party members in their leadership and administration. i think the world only started to believe that ISIS didnt take their inspiration from the Quran when reports and footage came through about that Jordanian pilot burned alive last year. Something completely abhorrent in islam but a tactic of the Baath party in Iraq on their opponents during Saddam's time. even with explicit prescriptions and restrictions against it they still found some justifications as with all these other psychopathic behaviour. but everytime i think they have reached the lowest of wickedness and evil, that theres nowhere for them to go, i see something new, today that ISIS's sharia judges issued a fatawa ordering children with Down's Syndrome and other disabilities to be killed. from newborns onwards

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3358840/How-depraved-ISIS-Group-s-Sharia-judges-order-children-s-syndrome-disabilities-killed-chilling-echo-Nazis.html

and so they further drag the name of Islam and the religion of Muhammad into the mud because most people will read 'Sharia Judge rules disabled kids to be killed' and automatically accept that whereas its so far out of what Islam teaches. Again however, euthanasia used to be carried out in Saddam's Iraq on too-sick infants and children. But they stamp it with Sharia and fatwa and make a mockery and bastardisation of both.

A sense of the wonder of humanity and all that humanity has achieved. A love of other people. A sense of personal responsibilty for the way the world should be.

And, less admirable, an understanding of quid pro quo.

slugseatlettuce

if everyone was psychopathic and out for themselves, it wouldn't be a beneficial strategy.

On the contrary, in such an environment NOT being psychopathic would place you at an enormous disadvantage.

"On the contrary, in such an environment NOT being psychopathic would place you at an enormous disadvantage"

Exactly, it takes very strong social conditioning to make altruism the order of the day rather than the intrinsic survival of the fittest humans would normally incline to. Though capitalism kind of turns that on its head anyway

And the last thing an unscrupulous person needs is the cover of religion. I don't get your point on evolution Deb. Many traits may be useful to survival and reproduction and some of them may be "opposites".

I tell my children to cooperate but watch out for users..and those who try to manipulate including via religion.and superstition.

the test of morality is where it presses on your own comfort and self-interest. And the question is, what support do humanists/secularists/atheists have in those cases?

The same shared human values (e.g. empathy, compassion, cooperation) that are evident across all religious and many non-religious belief systems, stemming from our capacity for rational thought and reflection and underpinned by our biological basis?

Are religious societies any more or less 'moral' than secular ones?

What gives them the motivation to act against their own comfort and happiness?

Immortality is only possible through genetics and memetics, which requires the survival of the human species. The survival of the species requires cooperation, which requires at least a fragmentary behavioural code and structure. Compliance with the code and conformity with the structure enhances likelihood of genetic and memetic survival. Extreme compliance (individual sacrifice) has the potential to enormously increase likelihood of genetic or memetic immortality.

Easy.

I live in a community and have found support for bringing up my children.
There is a very family friendly welcoming church here that has provided support to some friends. However I couldn't stomach the (occasional) anti homosexual preaching. I don't.t feel my children have lost out by this.

Though capitalism kind of turns that on its head anyway

Capitalism is the failed attempt to harness selfish behaviours for the common good. It has produced incredible social and technological advances, but fails because it exponentially rewards greater levels of anti-social behaviour, fundamentally wrecking the social fabric of the cultures it ostensibly benefits.

Cooperation also helps in competition as groups that have better cooperation within themselves makes them better at competing with other groups. but how did we get from small groups of hunter gatherers to large multi functioning socieities working together? alot of that groundwork was laid by religion, increasing trust and cooperative ties between strangers, wayfarers, nomads, bedouins, by the Big God (Gods in the case of Hinduism) overall.