Moderate Muslims and Catholics-Nice But Dumb?

[Gonzo Joker]

Adherence to any faith-based religious doctrine is pretty dumb, I wouldn't limit the field to Muslims and Catholics.

The root of the word atheism is a-theism, which literally means to be without a belief in god. Therefore, if you had never heard of the concept of a god or gods, you would, by default, be an atheist.

There is no logical need for an atheist to disprove a negative; he or she qualifies as an atheist by simply not buying into silly god beliefs.

[Megenoita]

Yes, they are inconsistent. Why? They, like most human beings, sell out to appease more people. This isn't necessarily a conscience act; it's a natural inclination, an inborn proclivity. Moderates most of the time don't even know that they're denying their own books; they just interpret it in a way that helps their cause, and they come to believe that it's really saying what their desire for it to say is.

I've read the Koran and found major and obvious inconsistencies to what moderate Muslims claim. After studying other religions, this doesn't surprise me, but I can confirm that it's definitely true.

I've also studied Catholicism in depth, and yes, you are right that the Bible is definitely different to vastly different than what they claim. But it should be apparent to the student of history that the Catholic church has proven herself highly corrupt, so it shouldn't be a surprise that this kind of thing is the way that it is.

Inconsistent does not equal dumb, though. Matters of the heart are not relevant to intelligence. I know brilliant men of varying (and sometimes wacky) belief systems.

[fretelöo]

[ QUOTE ]
I've also studied Catholicism in depth,

[/ QUOTE ]

May I ask what that studium consisted of?

And in what ways is the bible "vastly different"?

[ QUOTE ]
they just interpret it in a way that helps their cause, and they come to believe that it's really saying what their desire for it to say is.
--snip--

I've read the Koran and found major and obvious inconsistencies to what moderate Muslims claim. After studying other religions, this doesn't surprise me, but I can confirm that it's definitely true.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you say that you found the mechanism that makes Moderates screw up (i.e. twisting words to help their cause), what's your secret that keeps you from falling into the same trap?

Again, just curious.

[Yo_Respek]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I figured out the problem with atheism. Atheists act as if they are 100 percent sure that something doesn't exist. People who believe in some higher power believe anywhere from 1-100 percent that it does exist. Neither side can prove their case as fact. So Atheism must be illogical because it fails to consider that God not existing hasn't been proven as fact. We can then conclude that there are some emotional reasons and not factual reasons behind the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting argument. I guess how you define an atheist is quite important. I suppose somebody who was 50/50 on whether God existed would be labelled an Agnostic. Buy what if they were 75% sure there was no God? 90%? 99%? 99.999%? At what point does an Agnostic become an Atheist?

Personally I would call myself an Atheist. However, I am only about 95% sure there is no God. Of the remaining 5%, I would say about half is saying that one of the major religions is right (or at least on the right lines) and the other half is saying that there is a divine being, but mortals have no understanding of them.

I am sure that you don't have to be 100% sure there is no God to be an atheist. As you say, being 100% sure of anything is not terribly smart, even something that appears to be provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something

[Blarg]

Silly definitions of atheism, and I am sure that's no accident.

I'm an atheist because I don't believe in God. I don't have to prove he doesn't exist any more than someone has to prove he does. It just doesn't seem like a reasonable or necessary idea to me.

By the way, how does anyone know how "atheists act"? That's lousy phrasing.

[Xhad]

BTW, the "Atheism is stupid because nothing is 100% certain" argument is basically a white flag, and certainly doesn't support adherence to any specific religion (least of all one that demands you believe in it); why would you give yourself over to such a rigid standard of belief and morality if you can't be sure it's right?

[Blarg]

Certainly any claim that god must exist can't reasonably be extended to claim the primacy of one religion over another. Religions are so typically exclusionary and judgmental that it's ironic that they might accuse others of ignoring possibilities.

[Shilly]

[ QUOTE ]
Moderate Muslims can often be seen denouncing Muslim extremeists who espouse violence with the words that the extremists are twisting the Koran's teachings. I have no idea if that is true. But I do know that there have been many western writers who state the it appears the Koran does indeed advocate what the extremists claim. Since that point is bandied about so much why do the moderates not make a major effort to engage extremists in a public debate showing once and for all that both the extremists and the western journalists are wrong? Is it because an accurate reading of the Koran shows them not to be wrong. Are the moderates simply picking and choosing certain things from the Koran to coincide with common sense and a desire to be nice? Nothing wrong with that but they should admit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like the Bible, the Koran is something that must be interpreted. This leads to different schools of thought; generally, extremists adhere to a more literal interpretation of the Koran, while moderates allow for wider interpretation. These classifications are broad, and can sometimes overshadow the more important divisions within the two groups. Divisions are not as clear as you say, and can be very touchy politically.

Take, for example, Indonesia. The majority of Indonesians practice Islam, and tend to fit into two groups, the traditionalists and the modernists. Traditionalists practice a form of Islam that is influenced by indigenous religions, while the modernists use a more literal interpretation of the Koran. In order to gain popularity with both groups, politicians must make bargains and center themselves somewhere between the two poles. This tends to prevent extremists from gaining power, and keeps leadership positions for those with moderate positions (that is, they appeal to both sides in some ways).

Politicians can quickly lose popularity if they publicly denounce "extremists" and make it a point to crack down on acts of terrorism caused by extremist groups, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the ability to combat terror requires a larger role from the state. The ability to arrest or detain suspected terrorists brings back memories for many Muslim-majority countries (like Indonesia) that have a history of repressive authoritarian regimes, and can seriously hamper democratic progress in these countries. In addition, an agreement to crack down on terror also requires that the government allow the US to participate, which can be perceived by some as both a loss of national sovereignty and submission to the (Christian) West. For these reasons, it can be very tricky for politicians to fight terror publicly.

Also, it's often hard to separate violence or terror caused by a group like Al Qaeda (which doesn't actually have any ties to many Muslim states) and other Muslim groups. A good example is the distinction between Indonesian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, and a group like Laskar Jihad, whose name leads one to think that it is often involved in religious violence, while in reality it is an extortion ring with no clear political or religious goal.

[Sqred]

Catholics believe that dogma is derived from the living Holy Roman Catholic Church. Scripture is not the sole source of dogma for a Catholic. This is very different than "Fundamentalist" theology. Hence the term Fundamentalist.

To a Catholic, Christ conveys his will to and thorugh his living church, which is Apostolic in nature. This gets confusing, but answers D.S.'s original question the best way I can think of. Of course, there is a little bit of intellectual and thelogical arrogance in tne Catholic worldview. We find it funny that hillbilly evangelical Fundamentalists use the bible that WE DECIDED THEY WOULD READ to refute our positions and dogma. This to us is laughable. Do they see why?

[Hoi Polloi]

Fundamentalist Christians take the bible to be the arbiter of disputes (plus, one assumes, an unacknowledged body of interpretations as to the text's meanings, but that's another thread). The Catholic Church, on the contrary, has a set of teachings, rules, etc. that are not based solely on a "literal" or any other reading of the bible. Hence, it is not surprising that there are doctrinal differences between the various sects. How could it be otherwise?

Are they all Christian? Who would be recognized as authoritative on the matter?