How is that a generalization? Ah ok I see what you did... I was actually going to defend the quoted muslim by saying it was not threatening, and not wanting to sound like an apologist just thought it be wise that I have no love for religion, any of it... And as I said, I do have contempt for Islam, and religions.
Of course it does. Islam is no more than plagiarism from the old testament and other religions. When it was made up, there was quite a bit of competing religions, hence for example, one of the ten commandments of crhistians: "You shall have no other gods before me". It's as barbaric as the barbaric primitive man who created it...
"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
"Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" etc.. etc...
How can you say that it's not extrinsically violent? Even teh bible is littered with similar verses... Old testament was really to be read, big eye opener as to what/who god is and what his values was/is...
My god... What a bad analogy. A gun is a tool, an object whose purpose is hurl a projectile at high velocity to incapacitate/maim/kill a target/being. Religion, I won't go in depth, is basically a set of primitive beliefs which poisons the mind. And yes, it's been 'misused', if you can construed this as 'misusing', you could easily argue that it has simply served its purpose.
There's no way to 'use' it properly. Tell me, what's the punishment for breaking one of the ten commandments? At one point, it was death was it not? Today, luckily, civilized world has evolved to a point where they don't give any weight to silly religious beliefs. But in many parts of the world, religion is law. You can say now that it's being misused, but you're simply applying your own values to what you consider to be the correct use of religion. Which is absolutely flawed btw. You're simply not seeing religion for what it really is.
Ex: You'll claim, for example, that disfiguring a young child because she is going to school is not what your beliefs deem ethical, yet, some equally or more religious than you will disagree. Same for stoning a woman because she's out in a bathing suit, this would be barbaric to you, yet, to other equally or more religious than you, wearing the bathing suit is appalling and based on their religious beliefs, stoning is the correct response. Or, you might think that drawing a cartoon of the prophet is ok, but some religious believers might believe otherwise, and would say that beheading is the correct response. And religiously, they'd probably be right. As it's all a matter of interpretation of the silly religious beliefs/laws. You interpret it one way, somebody else interprets it another way, who's to say who's wrong? You think you're more qualified than them? How presumptuous and pompous of you... How dare you judge their beliefs and their ways?
Anyhow, this discussion is rather pointless is it not? Simply, religions are false beliefs. They make grand claims and fail to deliver. Civilized societies do not need religion in any shape or form. It's negative effects have been well documented throughout the years, and even today, a great number of people suffer greatly because of these primitive beliefs. It's divisive, it's... *sigh*
It seems to me that you cannot understand any viewpoints beyond your own. Yes, the analogy I used wasn't a perfect one, but it was merely to illustrate a point that I used it. If you couldn't see that, I can only presume wilful blindness. A set of beliefs or philosophy cannot inflict any physical harm on anybody. It takes a person to do that. The closest that a religion can come to inflicting physical harm is if you whack somebody over the head with a bible. Even then, it is
still just the physical book and not the religion itself. Sure it provides the basis for belief, but it still just a book and it boils down to how it's interpreted.
You conveniently ignored my point about religions not having a monopoly in violence. The vast majority of people killed in the 20th century were
not victims of religious persecution.
You stated, "There's no way to 'use' it properly." Are you implying that nobody can hold religious beliefs and still act in an responsible manner? Do you
really believe that?
Bottom line is, freedom of speech trumps all, as far as I'm concerned. If anyone wishes to mock Mohammed, Jesus, or any other religious figure, that is their business and I wouldn't have it any other way. They should not be punished or persecuted for it. I draw the line when any action taken "in the name of God" violates another person's basic human rights.
You are right about civilized societies not "needing" religion. It's more important what a person does, than what he or she believes. One could argue that we don't "need" socialism. However, if there were no socialist beliefs allowed, our economy would still resemble the age of feudalism at worst, or robber-barons at best. It's all a matter of ballance. If somebody chooses to hold certain beliefs that would be considered "religious", they shouldn't be regarded as soft in the head.
That would be rather close-minded. I can appreciate why some people are athiests and I respect that. To make the claim that a religion is a set of "false beliefs", is truly "presumptuous and pompous". You can no more prove the non-existence of God any more than I can prove that God does exist.
I probably do not conform to the stereotype that an athiest would consider a Christian. I do not think that God is a man up in the clouds with a long grey beard and flowing white robes, I do not believe that there were an "Adam and Eve" in the literal sense or that they rode dinosaurs and I do not believe Jesus to be divine, i.e. the literal son of God.
I am a Christian because I believe Jesus' teachings to be valid life lessons. If you haven't read about Jesus, I can tell you that non-violence was at the core of his teachings. Wait a minute, I already did. But, you chose not to address that point at all. Martin Luther King Jr. took those lessons to heart. Do you think
he was a danger to society?
You've nitpicked at a couple of points I made, without actually countering any of them. I am more than happy to discuss any topic that is of interest to me and will always listen to different viewpoints. But, if your posts are going to be essentially "copy and paste" jobs and the typed version of a broken record, my interest will fade rapidly. I try to maintain an open mind and I do not ridicule other peoples beliefs when I do not share them. I just ask that the favour be returned. If you wish to actually counter any of the points I have made, I'd be more than happy to read and acknowledge what you have to say. But, if it's more of the same, don't expect a response.
Having said that, I'm more than happy to "agree to disagree" and leave it at. Peace be with you!