Atheistforums.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCDxhyc2bvE

A good question came up in this video, and I'm paraphrasing because it's a video and not written down, but "is it because Islam is 700 years younger that they are more immature and not past their bad period of violence?" :think:

Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 25, 2015, 02:16:22 AM
A good question came up in this video, and I'm paraphrasing because it's a video and not written down, but "is it because Islam is 700 years younger that they are more immature and not past their bad period of violence?" :think:

That's the kind of thing people always say who are trying to excuse Islam.  It's also the type of thing people say when they are not informed about the nature of Islam.  Islam is younger than other religions like Judaism, Christianity, and others.  However, being a younger religion doesn't force it to be violent toward its own professing members or the outside world.

In the case of Islam, the distinction of being violent is owed to its founder, the Prophet Muhammed.  He was depredator and warrior who was involved in pillaging and massacres.  And of course, like Jesus Christ for Christians, the Prophet is the al-Insān al-Kāmil (i.e. perfect man or example) for the Muslim, and there is no real way of getting around that.  A lot of people will tell you that Islam means peace, but it doesn't.  Salam means peace in the Muslim world.  Islam means submission to the will of Allah.  The fact that, in terms of worldview, Islam divides the world into two parts (i.e. Dar al-Islam / The House of Islam & Dar al-Harb / The House of War) and that the entire point of Islam is to bring the entire Earth into or under submission to Allah should make pretty clear what the problem is.  These are not tangential issues to Islam or some kind of secondary doctrines held by few.  These are core doctrines of the Muslim faith and the very bedrock of the things they believe and that the Prophet taught.  There is no way to get away from that.  Islam had it's own "Reformation" in the 1700s under Muhammad ibn Ê¿Abd al-Wahhab, which is where you get the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, as well as the Salafis throughout the Middle East & North Africa.  The Christian reformation was about getting back to the basics of the word of God and stripping out all of man's external teachings placed on top of it by the Roman Catholic church of its day.  Well, Wahhabism was essentially the same thing, and as a result, it emerged as one of the most violent strains of Islam since the days of Muhammed and immediately following his death.  Read the history of Islam.  Read the Qur'an.  Read the most authoritative Hadith by Muhammad al-Bukhari.  You'll see what I'm talking about.  Don't be fooled by the nonsense we get fed by the mainstream press.

Islam from it's start was a violent "religion". It is still as violent as it was 1400 years ago.

Perhaps reformation is the wrong expression. Enlightenment would more desirable, however it is not possible, not for a long time.

In fact, reformation is happening right now, ISIS, Boko haram, Muslim Brotherhood, the Taleban, and the hundreds of other jihadists groups are reforming Islam to it's original form.

Wishing Islam to reform (in our meaning of the word) is a pie in the sky. Not going to happen.
Islam now is rich, strong, focused, and willing to fight and die for Allah.

Waiting for Islam to "mellow" is futile. It won't happen in many generations to come.
Much better is to study their theology, to understand what makes Islam what it is.

Unfortunately the west just doesn't want to know. But know it will. The hard way.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 03:52:59 AM
That's the kind of thing people always say who are trying to excuse Islam.  It's also the type of thing people say when they are not informed about the nature of Islam.

From what you've said so far your no authority on what the nature of a religion is.

I think Odoital778412 has described Islam quite well in hIs  second paragraph.

I am not sure what kind of "authority" is needed that you are referring to.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 03:52:59 AM
That's the kind of thing people always say who are trying to excuse Islam.  It's also the type of thing people say when they are not informed about the nature of Islam.  Islam is younger than other religions like Judaism, Christianity, and others.  However, being a younger religion doesn't force it to be violent toward its own professing members or the outside world.

In the case of Islam, the distinction of being violent is owed to its founder, the Prophet Muhammed.  He was depredator and warrior who was involved in pillaging and massacres.  And of course, like Jesus Christ for Christians, the Prophet is the al-Insān al-Kāmil (i.e. perfect man or example) for the Muslim, and there is no real way of getting around that.  A lot of people will tell you that Islam means peace, but it doesn't.  Salam means peace in the Muslim world.  Islam means submission to the will of Allah.  The fact that, in terms of worldview, Islam divides the world into two parts (i.e. Dar al-Islam / The House of Islam & Dar al-Harb / The House of War) and that the entire point of Islam is to bring the entire Earth into or under submission to Allah should make pretty clear what the problem is.  These are not tangential issues to Islam or some kind of secondary doctrines held by few.  These are core doctrines of the Muslim faith and the very bedrock of the things they believe and that the Prophet taught.  There is no way to get away from that.  Islam had it's own "Reformation" in the 1700s under Muhammad ibn Ê¿Abd al-Wahhab, which is where you get the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, as well as the Salafis throughout the Middle East & North Africa.  The Christian reformation was about getting back to the basics of the word of God and stripping out all of man's external teachings place on top of it by the Roman Catholic church of its day.  Well, Wahhabism was essentially the same thing, and as a result, it emerged as one of the most violent strains of Islam since the days of Muhammed and immediately following his death.  Read the history of Islam.  Read the Qur'an.  Read the most authoritative Hadith by Muhammad al-Bukhari.  You'll see what I'm talking about.  Don't be fooled by the nonsense we get fed by the mainstream press.

We can't look at two or three religions that have had violent pasts and conclude all religions follow the path of Christianity.  It's tempting but it's a non sequitur.  Christianity didn't stop being violent until western culture no longer allowed it ultimate power.  It has nothing to do with the religion of Christianity naturally evolving into a more peaceful religion on it's own.  Without restraints from society, there is no reason to think Christianity wouldn't be imposing itself on the world as it did during the inquisition.  Nor can we say that societies naturally evolve into more peaceful societies.  Western culture evolved over 700 years toward a slightly more peaceful society and then came Hitler and Stalin, and American style freedom is fragile and tentative at best.  Just look at forces trying to destroy it right now from within.

So we can't say evolutions of societies or evolutions of religions all follow natural paths toward openness, peace, and freedom.  The Arab world went from the center of intellectual achievement to the backwards system it is today.  There was no linear progression at all.  I think we would all like to believe such a linear progression for the entire world exists, myself included, but I don't see enough data to convince me that this is true.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 03:52:59 AM
That's the kind of thing people always say who are trying to excuse Islam.  It's also the type of thing people say when they are not informed about the nature of Islam.  Islam is younger than other religions like Judaism, Christianity, and others.  However, being a younger religion doesn't force it to be violent toward its own professing members or the outside world.

In the case of Islam, the distinction of being violent is owed to its founder, the Prophet Muhammed.  He was depredator and warrior who was involved in pillaging and massacres.  And of course, like Jesus Christ for Christians, the Prophet is the al-Insān al-Kāmil (i.e. perfect man or example) for the Muslim, and there is no real way of getting around that.  A lot of people will tell you that Islam means peace, but it doesn't.  Salam means peace in the Muslim world.  Islam means submission to the will of Allah.  The fact that, in terms of worldview, Islam divides the world into two parts (i.e. Dar al-Islam / The House of Islam & Dar al-Harb / The House of War) and that the entire point of Islam is to bring the entire Earth into or under submission to Allah should make pretty clear what the problem is.  These are not tangential issues to Islam or some kind of secondary doctrines held by few.  These are core doctrines of the Muslim faith and the very bedrock of the things they believe and that the Prophet taught.  There is no way to get away from that.  Islam had it's own "Reformation" in the 1700s under Muhammad ibn Ê¿Abd al-Wahhab, which is where you get the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, as well as the Salafis throughout the Middle East & North Africa.  The Christian reformation was about getting back to the basics of the word of God and stripping out all of man's external teachings place on top of it by the Roman Catholic church of its day.  Well, Wahhabism was essentially the same thing, and as a result, it emerged as one of the most violent strains of Islam since the days of Muhammed and immediately following his death.  Read the history of Islam.  Read the Qur'an.  Read the most authoritative Hadith by Muhammad al-Bukhari.  You'll see what I'm talking about.  Don't be fooled by the nonsense we get fed by the mainstream press.

You sound like a muslim cleric talking to muslims about Christianity in a friday sermon. The pot calling the kettle black. Let me put it in a way that a Christian would get his fellow believers from another religion.

You are making the common mistake of comparing a warlord set out to unite a specific nation and created a new law and standard of life in in 7th century. What's basically done everywhere around the world at the time and long time before and after Muhammed. Muhammed is not different than any other warlord. He is just a 'successful' one. On the other hand, Jesus is an eclectic, pagan god, an imaginary character that first got designed in Nicaea Council and evolved in similar different ways. 

You seem to have no real insight to Islamic faith or their perspective on their prophet and Christianity's 'contribution' to it. Muhammed's quality of a human being and not him being perfect -because humans can't be- always illustrated, emphasized and gets advertised very cleverly against the contrast of a figure of a messiah, a mortal man who has been falsely deemed, corrupted as god, because of his perverse people. Who is he? Jesus Christ. Because to Muslims, the holy trinity divides one omnipotent creator of the universe in to humaan qualities. Spirit, a mortal man...etc.

You shouldn't have a problem with understanding this logic. Muslims believe that god have sent 3 original prophets to earth. Moses. his people declared themselves above all god's people, while god created everyone with the same chance at salvation. So he has punished them and then sent a second one to warn them -Jesus is not a 'prophet' according to Islam because he is not sent a holy book, but called a 'prophet', because he is as holy of the god. Muslims give the same reaction if you take his name in vain. He is to be talked by the same honorific as it is used for Muhammed. And his people got perverted, tortured and killed him, declared him god. (Though according to Islamic faith, Romans thought they tortured and killed Jesus, Son of Meryem, but the one kafirs did all these things were actually someone else, because he was already taken to heaven. One of the miracles in Islam. Jesus is not killed, cannot be killed by man, he is a prophet of god) Anyway, these are two great sins according to these people. To declare yourself above all god's people (Jews), and declare a mortal man as god and worship him (Christians). So god has sent a third, final prophet. Muhammed. And god will not send another till the end of times.

Who is Muhammed? Muhammed is an illiterate shepherd (this is always emphasized, more than that also that he always stayed more or less illiterate, that he is a simple man. It's a brilliant way of marketing.) who developed an idea how to control the land in his contact with the merchants in the region. (This is marketed as saving people from oppression of the old rule. Bad ways of polytheism. The usual one. Same with the other two.) How do you gain a power and control a region?  Money. Currency. He gets married to a rich widow, whose family has been in contact with Jewish merchants for a long time. So when he started to gain the power to be a political threat to others, it is not a surprise that the outline of his holy book took from them. This is why Islam has a lot in common with traditional Judaism in some things. He attached his system to Abrahamic religions. Removed the parts he saw as a threat. Basically he is a very successful businessman of his time who got in politics and won the big prize.

And then he did exactly what other warlords did. First in his own region, then expanded. And his successors followed him as heirs follows their kings. He attacked around and gained power, land, riches. Exactly how happend in the West. There is one way to do this.

The question that 'Why didn't Islam develop?' is not just an invalid question, also a stupid one. Religions do not get developed or evolve. Societies do in time, because the control THE STATE needs to provide changes. Religions stay the same, that is the definition of them. Western countries did not develop because Christianity did. Christianty did not develop, it is the same thing. They also didn't start to develop with Renaissance or what came after. While those movements of enlightenment and periods contributed overall to the development, from the peoples' point, civil rights, the life they lived was not different than the Middle Ages in Renaissance or after. Not until a short time ago conmpared to human history. West started to become West after 1789 with the evolution of the MODERN STATE. And the modern state of Western culture(s) NEED its people to be secular up to a point now. Today, a Western country cannot benefit or profit from a religious society. In the Islam world this is exactly the opposite. There is no benefit or profit in secularism or laicism in Muslim countries, esp. against an oppressive, agressive ideal in contrast; the West. I see no need to mention the European invasion and colonisation of the world of hundreds of years or the way that leads to the first industrial revolution...etc. Have you ever heard of Industrial Revolution and how that changed the world? That is what changed the world. Not some tamed religion.

Christianity has imposed itself on the world with violence for a long time. Still does. Without the modern state, West is the Christian Middle East. The 'nature' of all religions are the same. Religions do NOT develop. They CAN'T.

Quote from: pr126 on May 25, 2015, 05:47:36 AM
I am not sure what kind of "authority" is needed that you are referring to.

He is a believer of an Abrahamic religion. Anyone who believes in woo woo, doesn't have the authority to 'criticise' the other woo woo. Because it is not criticism, it is 'Our football team is better than theirs. Clap clap'. Nothing else.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 25, 2015, 02:16:22 AM
A good question came up in this video, and I'm paraphrasing because it's a video and not written down, but "is it because Islam is 700 years younger that they are more immature and not past their bad period of violence?" :think:

It might be worth noting that Islam is at about the same age that Catholicism was when the Inquisition really took off.  It might be a trait of proselytizing religions, a 15th century itch, something like that.

It might also be worth noting that during the 15th century AD you had the introduction of movable type printing in Europe, and during the 15th century AH you had the introduction of wide public usage of the Internet and the World Wide Web.  I cannot help but wonder if the sudden ability to get ideas from far afield of one's church or mosque triggered the violent and repressive reactions from the respective religious authorities.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 25, 2015, 07:25:14 AM
He is a believer of an Abrahamic religion. Anyone who believes in woo woo, doesn't have the authority to 'criticise' the other woo woo. Because it is not criticism, it is 'Our football team is better than theirs. Clap clap'. Nothing else.

I see. So Muslims have no authority to criticise other religions, but the do it anyway, constantly.
Not only that, but they are also murdering members of any other faith, just to make a point.

And Christians have no authority to criticise Muslims while getting murdere by them. Right?

I hate this fucking "cultural aging" bullshit. Cultures are not moody teenagers and they do not live in isolation of other cultures.

QuoteIt might also be worth noting that during the 15th century AD you had the introduction of movable type printing in Europe,

The contribution of print is a slow and an indirect one.

-Very few people are literate. It's mostly limited to clergy and the aristocracy.
- There is no language unification or standards. The dialects of 15th century Europe are vernaculas that are very different from each other. Latin is the lingua franca, the common language. Standards will come after 1789. There is no German or a French or an Italian language in 15th century. Most dominant vernaclars are Italian and Castilian (What we know today as Spanish.) For example, you are not talking in Italian in 15 th century. You are either speaking in Tuscony or Venetian or Neapolitan or Florantine or Roman. German is the worst case. Dialects are so different, there is almost no communication between regions and this creates a crisis, also prolongs the usage of Latin in administration and education and causes a famous reaction. It's not random that first bible in vernacular came from the 'German' speaking world.  When Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the All Saints Church's door, the language he used wasn't 'German', it was Saxony, because he spoke Saxony. He knew this, and all the issues with vernaculars and 'languages' and reaching to people; the deliberate actions of the Roman Catholic Church to keep people ignorant and that's why he did it. He also published his bible in Saxony with the chancery standart of his time. Today, German is still the least unified language in Europe. 

The idea that printing contributed to standardisation of languages -and so to general development- as a virtually automatic outcome of the mass production after Gutenberg is a false one. There are so many other things going on with languages and communication, accumulation of knowledge... etc. it is going in circles, not linear.

There are also no conscious politics that is leading to some development before French Revolution. Only what monarchs and their statemen do to stay in power. They are not reacting to issues and problems to solve. They react to provide dominance and order. For example, what Cardinal Richelieu did to impose French language -and also Louis the XIVth- is just imposing politics to gain dominance. Not conscious policies. But, did they succeed? Yes.

Quote from: trdsf on May 25, 2015, 07:44:26 AM
It might be worth noting that Islam is at about the same age that Catholicism was when the Inquisition really took off.  It might be a trait of proselytizing religions, a 15th century itch, something like that.

Christianity didn't have some stronger other to run against.

Quote from: pr126 on May 25, 2015, 07:50:10 AM
I see. So Muslims have no authority to criticise other religions, but the do it anyway, constantly.
Not only that, but they are also murdering members of any other faith, just to make a point.

And Christians have no authority to criticise Muslims while getting murdere by them. Right?

No, I typed the word critcise as 'criticise'. And I said one believer of woo woo VS the other believer woo woo. To me they are exactly the same.

So either learn to read or stop putting words in my mouth. In any case, stop making retarded arguments from word games when what is written is clear.

It is still my opinion that the great divide is nothing more than the consequences of education. The jews are generally mistrusted and despised not because they are jewish, as they are usually depicted as being devious and deceitful. This is more due the culture that promotes education of their youth. Being smarter makes being clever and "devious" simply easier.

"Christian" nations started pushing compulsory education back in the late 1500's. Education enhances logic, causes questioning, births skepticism which of course leads to a more liberal take of dogma.

Right now, the past successes of education in many islamic countries are being wiped out by a real attempt to inhibit education at all other than studying the koran. "Christian" nations see a great influx of people form muslim nations for two-fold reasons, to get a better eduction and to understand the culture of the people they are going to be in business with, hopefully.

Education, imo, will always be the apple.

Quote from: aitm on May 25, 2015, 09:37:00 AM
"Christian" nations started pushing compulsory education back in the late 1500's.

That's religious education. It's the only education available to the common people, before 1789. Nobles, rich class and clergy make minority among the population. Mandatory universal education spread in 19th century. Proper secular education is younger than that. 

QuoteRight now, the past successes of education in many islamic countries are being wiped out by a real attempt to inhibit education at all other than studying the koran.

What kind of education they had in the past free from religion in Islamic countries? I mean, besides the western curriculum models?

Quote"Christian" nations see a great influx of people form muslim nations for two-fold reasons, to get a better eduction and to understand the culture of the people they are going to be in business with, hopefully.

That's not education. That's 'learning a trade' and how to get along.

QuoteEducation, imo, will always be the apple.

Conscious secular education is the apple. You can teach a kid math and science and brainwash him with religious bullshit at the same time. Esp. in a society that didn't go through the struggle of enlightment by itself AND had every kind of progress imposed and technology bought and thrust to its hands. All you need is a perception management showing that West is a developed but also a corrupted culture. Take its technology and science, stay away from its ideals. There. You created a self righteous, functioning system that will educate its children and will benefit from ignorance to no end. You can hold Western societies together with telling them that theirs the ideal, 'oh look at the islamic ones, beware, they are after your culture', while you can hold the Islamic ones together, 'oh look how corrupted and immoral they became trying to dictate the world with their technology and science'. It works so fucking good.

That's what happened in Turkey. They got secularised in education and social relations, everything starting 1920s. (Even offical marriage is not religious and people get a religious ceremony as an extra here. You don't count as officially married in law with religious ceremony, you need to get a licence with an official.) As the secular culture in the world meant Western culture, they actually just got 'Westernised'. They started to raise their children with Western ideals, education, language, culture...etc. They oppressed religious people, first unconsciously, it was a side effect of the new system and hatred against the Empire. Those people and their culture were undesirable. The country already had little economy, because like everything, from industrial revolution to mass production got in very late. They joined the world (1980s) and everything started to come from the US or Europe. Economy never got stable, because it never reached a point to be mature itself, let alone to compete with Western products for its own. So while there was a secular middle class thriving, the labour class, the lower classes started to fall worse AND AT THAT BRIDGE, secularism; Westernisation starts to become unwanted as a culture; people use the technology and what is taken from there, but refuse the culture amd main frame of thought and ideas that caused that development. (Like rubes in the US) They return to religion, religious culture, nationalism, as a unification of their communities; affirmation of their identities and culture. This is simple human reality. When people are soveriegn class citizens they are happy with everything as that's what made them dominant. When they are not and pushed because they are not from that culture and this goes for some time with bad economy, they start to form a SIDE and work against the secular  majority.

And then oppression starts. Soveriegn class actively dictates that the religious class is 2nd or the 3rd. They prevent them from practising in administration, education, wear head scarves in offices or even universities, because it is a political sign. The more they opress them, the more they get underground and get organised.

Why do you think there has been coups in Turkey in the past. And then sooner or later they come to power with a vengeance. There. That's Turkey today. Now, exactly like  American rubes, they keep shouting how persecuted they are at every opportunity. But with one difference, they really have been up to some point. 

Education alone doesn't do jack squat. If it did anything, it would do to the American republican group. They do not want to accept the secular culture and want to stay ignorant, because doing that is denying their identity, culture and community. Accepting secular American culture means they will be made something they are not. Idioitic? Yes, very. But it is also real.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 25, 2015, 08:35:34 AM
The contribution of print is a slow and an indirect one.

-Very few people are literate. It's mostly limited to clergy and the aristocracy.
- There is no language unification or standards. The dialects of 15th century Europe are vernaculas that are very different from each other. Latin is the lingua franca, the common language. Standards will come after 1789. There is no German or a French or an Italian language in 15th century. Most dominant vernaclars are Italian and Castilian (What we know today as Spanish.) For example, you are not talking in Italian in 15 th century. You are either speaking in Tuscony or Venetian or Neapolitan or Florantine or Roman. German is the worst case. Dialects are so different, there is almost no communication between regions and this creates a crisis, also prolongs the usage of Latin in administration and education and causes a famous reaction. It's not random that first bible in vernacular came from the 'German' speaking world.  When Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the All Saints Church's door, the language he used wasn't 'German', it was Saxony, because he spoke Saxony. He knew this, and all the issues with vernaculars and 'languages' and reaching to people; the deliberate actions of the Roman Catholic Church to keep people ignorant and that's why he did it. He also published his bible in Saxony with the chancery standart of his time. Today, German is still the least unified language in Europe. 

The idea that printing contributed to standardisation of languages -and so to general development- as a virtually automatic outcome of the mass production after Gutenberg is a false one. There are so many other things going on with languages and communication, accumulation of knowledge... etc. it is going in circles, not linear.

There are also no conscious politics that is leading to some development before French Revolution. Only what monarchs and their statemen do to stay in power. They are not reacting to issues and problems to solve. They react to provide dominance and order. For example, what Cardinal Richelieu did to impose French language -and also Louis the XIVth- is just imposing politics to gain dominance. Not conscious policies. But, did they succeed? Yes.

Christianity didn't have some stronger other to run against.

And to add.  For most of the history of this world, illiteracy was the norm.  And for most of the history of the Catholic church, the laity were not allowed to read the bible--and many of the priests were allowed to only read part of it themselves.  The priesthood informed the people of what they wanted them to know.  Most people today, don't read the bible or whatever their holy writings are--they leave that to the priests and simply do what they are told to do.  That is what all religious hierarchies strive for; that's how they maintain their control.

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 25, 2015, 11:04:31 AM
And to add.  For most of the history of this world, illiteracy was the norm.  And for most of the history of the Catholic church, the laity were not allowed to read the bible--and many of the priests were allowed to only read part of it themselves.  The priesthood informed the people of what they wanted them to know.  Most people today, don't read the bible or whatever their holy writings are--they leave that to the priests and simply do what they are told to do.  That is what all religious hierarchies strive for; that's how they maintain their control.

Yep, it's very easy to exploit ignorant people. Before Abrahamic religions, priests of pagan religions did the same. If you keep the herds ignorant, you'll play them however you want.

How to make minions 101.

As I said, the "push" for compulsory eduction started in the late 1500's, while largely religious the push for educating the masses was in the move in the early 1600', where basic reading and math was taught. One must remember that in order for mass eduction to work, you need more teachers and more teachers inevitably will come from the mass public. While certainly people can and did wish to remain ignorant, many continued to look for more in the ways of science. Education in any form is a little better than nothing. The great schisms of christianity came about due to skepticism of the verses as more and more people were able to understand the babble.

The greatest scientists of those days had little choice but to attend religious indoctrinated universities, but that didn't stop them from learning and spreading rational thought and asking the questions that were the precursors of the next generation of "rebels"

Call me a heretic, but I feel that atheists tend to have this very biased view that scientists were (and are) all that influential, or at least just-as influential, then the slew of huge name reformists who weren't (and aren't) scientists.

It wasn't the science of John Locke or Descartes that lead to change, but the philosophy. Spinoza and Rousseau were huge influences on the secularization of the society, and yet they were not scientists at all. Nor were Voltaire, Hume, Petrarca scientists. And men like Martin Luther and Henry VIII caused huge rifts in the church and changed the idea of the infallibility of the church.

The Renaissance's greatest influence on secularization had almost nothing to do with science, and I'm not sure why people consider that a huge part of it. The hugest thing was a rediscovering of the Greek classics that emphasized the beauty of man. And during this time you see art boom with murals and paintings and sculptures that exalt man as this divine being, which was a huge shift from the previous hundreds of years in Christdom where man was worthless and pathetic to god.

I'm not saying science doesn't play a part, it certainly does, but it is education in general and, more importantly, art and philosophy that have had extreme influences on the changing mindset of society since the medieval times.

I think we want to look at society and said, "Factor A + B caused the change", whereas the simple truth is that society is never as simple as that. It is more like, "Factor A, B, C, D, E, F, G... AA, BBB, CCCCCC, GGGGGGGGGG, all combined, changed society.".

I figured the question I hilighted was a decent question on the basis of:

If you look at the people that believe in Christianity, for instance the people that believe it in the U.S., There are only a select few that believe it completely literally. There is a much higher percentage of people that see their belief in christianity as only a spiritual fulfilment thing and a comfort thing, without even knowing what it is. Most of these people that identify as moderate christians that I'm talking about, that only identify as christians don't even agree with the bigotry promoted in it. In fact, aside from the issue of "is religion a force for good" they would probably agree on every humanist position.

I know quite a few of these people, and while it frustrates me to see their moderate christianity enable more fundamentalist beliefs for other people because in their mind: "a belief should be respected and not mocked"... I would take a moderate religious person over a fundamental religious person any day of the week.

----

There seems to be a lower percentage of moderate muslims, but I guess it's not because Islam needed more time to get out of it's immaturaty stage, it's that the belief itself doesn't not allow nearly as much progress in thinking?

That's what I'm trying to understand.

Quote from: aitm on May 25, 2015, 11:49:23 AM
As I said, the "push" for compulsory eduction started in the late 1500's, while largely religious the push for educating the masses was in the move in the early 1600', where basic reading and math was taught.

There are no education in 16th century to influence massive movement or masses on the move or some 'push' for education in 15th century Europe that we could define as a basic education act.

People do not need to learn to get a basic education for an uprising. They are already starving.

A very small percentage of common children get that some basic education. And they are boys of families who can pay a fee to their landlord given that they are not starving, runing away from some civil war or uprising.

There are no standards in education, nor any conscious policies to make one. People are responsible from their own children's education. And whatever can be provided in the monasteries or churches is a religious education. They are not distributing math teachers around. Nobles can get education to their children which is minority.

The notion of seeing Renaissance as a dawn of modernity as opposed to the horrible dark ages is an exaggerated, postmodern idea. Renaissance is not a conscious, homogenic period covering all around. It's a movement that occurred under specific political and economical circumstances in a specific region. What spread around is different for everywhere and doesn't change anything for the peoples of the lands. 

Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 25, 2015, 08:35:34 AM
The contribution of print is a slow and an indirect one.

-Very few people are literate. It's mostly limited to clergy and the aristocracy.
- There is no language unification or standards. The dialects of 15th century Europe are vernaculas that are very different from each other. Latin is the lingua franca, the common language. Standards will come after 1789. There is no German or a French or an Italian language in 15th century. Most dominant vernaclars are Italian and Castilian (What we know today as Spanish.) For example, you are not talking in Italian in 15 th century. You are either speaking in Tuscony or Venetian or Neapolitan or Florantine or Roman. German is the worst case. Dialects are so different, there is almost no communication between regions and this creates a crisis, also prolongs the usage of Latin in administration and education and causes a famous reaction. It's not random that first bible in vernacular came from the 'German' speaking world.  When Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the All Saints Church's door, the language he used wasn't 'German', it was Saxony, because he spoke Saxony. He knew this, and all the issues with vernaculars and 'languages' and reaching to people; the deliberate actions of the Roman Catholic Church to keep people ignorant and that's why he did it. He also published his bible in Saxony with the chancery standart of his time. Today, German is still the least unified language in Europe.

The idea that printing contributed to standardisation of languages -and so to general development- as a virtually automatic outcome of the mass production after Gutenberg is a false one. There are so many other things going on with languages and communication, accumulation of knowledge... etc. it is going in circles, not linear.

And the lag between the introduction of the movable type press and the start of the Inquisition was several decades, not several minutes.  Communications in the 15th century were not instantaneous.

I don't know where your points about language standardization come from.  I wasn't talking about the standardization of languages, I was talking about the spread of ideas.  The historical fragmentation of language groups didn't prevent that, it only slowed it, and in any case as you point out Latin was the lingua franca of those who were literate and learned.  Especially among the clergy.

In any case, it is precisely the clergy and the aristocracy that Rome would have been most worried about because they controlled the local populations, so the church needed to control them.  Need I remind you that Luther was a Roman Catholic priest at the time of the 95 Theses?

Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 25, 2015, 08:35:34 AM
There are also no conscious politics that is leading to some development before French Revolution. Only what monarchs and their statemen do to stay in power. They are not reacting to issues and problems to solve. They react to provide dominance and order. For example, what Cardinal Richelieu did to impose French language -and also Louis the XIVth- is just imposing politics to gain dominance. Not conscious policies. But, did they succeed? Yes.

How is "what monarchs and their statement do to stay in power" not conscious politics?  Practical politics have been practiced by leaders at all levels functionally since the invention of cities.  I don't know why you place an arbitrary dividing line at the French revolution -- sixteen years after the American revolution, which, at least over here, was not about preserving the power of the monarchy.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 25, 2015, 08:35:34 AM
Christianity didn't have some stronger other to run against.

Christianity was in the middle of the development of the Protestant Reformation -- Luther didn't start the ball rolling, he's just where we can place a clear line saying 'this is where the schism occurred'.  John Wycliffe (another Roman Catholic priest) in England, though he had died in 1384, had so irritated the church with his anti-hierarchical (and worse, influential) teachings that the pope ordered his remains dug up and burned... in 1428, 44 years later.  Jan Hus (yet another Roman Catholic priest -- see what I mean about the clergy, above?) of Bohemia was executed in 1415, but his movement wasn't effectively squashed until 1620.  And there was the Western Schism going on -- multiple popes all claiming legitimacy (each claimant backed for political far more than spiritual reasons) and not settled on a single line until nearly 1430.

It was doing a damned good job of running against itself, so when you throw in the late mini-Crusades of Nicopolis, Varna and Otranto against the Muslim Ottoman Empire -- the last being in the 1480s -- and the Hussite Crusade referenced above, it's hard to support the idea of a church that wasn't besieged on all fronts: militarily, politically and philosophically.  Christianity in the 1400s was well beset internally and externally, so it's probably not surprising that it reacted violently once it felt it had regained its equilibrium.

Quote from: trdsf on May 25, 2015, 03:06:17 PM
And the lag between the introduction of the movable type press and the start of the Inquisition was several decades, not several minutes.  Communications in the 15th century were not instantaneous.

Several decades of a time span in that time suggests immediate connection. However, movable type press didn't have the  influence you think, because just printing as small book took months. And the reason I talked about languages is that there are NO 'languages' in 15th century as we understand today. Illiteracy is the norm. Without a standard langauge, an already literate society, printing is not a immediate threat to the clergy or to the Church to react in several decades. It's about the general power. It's the greatest power and it has to gain more to continue its existence. If it doesn't, power will change hands.

Even that was the case, with the printing there should have been an enormous project of translation which alone would take decades, -and to what vernacular in a region?- but couldn't have because a very few people knew different vernaculars in a level to translate some idea book into another one. Because all communication goes in Latin. Practically, it is impossible.

For example, English was not even in the vernacular race in 15 or 16th century. Because nobody needed to understand English. Embassadors speak Latin.

QuoteI don't know where your points about language standardization come from.  I wasn't talking about the standardization of languages, I was talking about the spread of ideas.

How do you think ideas spread? Spreading of ideas, actually more than that invention of ideas; emergence of ideas is directly based on competion of early modern European vernaculars; their competion with Latin. And finally standardisation of languages.

QuoteThe historical fragmentation of language groups didn't prevent that, it only slowed it, ...

When you say 'historical fragmentation of language', it suggests that there was actually a standard, a series of standard languages as we understand today, but then something happened and they got fragmented.

That's not the case. Again, there are no 'languages' in Europe in 15th century, but vernaculars and their communities. There is no slowing down or speeding up. This is not a deterministic process. It's not linear. Even after spreading of printed books in vernaculars, usage of Latin continues -though it is declining of course-  the ideas are still limited to the educated minority. Church still has a great hold on on people. And will for  aloooong time.

There is also a big process of creating new words, neologisms, again standardisation attempts which is directly influenced by puritanism. Because the idea of purism in language is anthropologically based in the idea of purism in religion.

This is actually a big bloody 'war' and shaped the road to the development of Western culture. In the end, some vernaculars died, some survived, some became languages. For example, French became the new 'lingua franca'  and then declined, today we have English. And all that is happened between a period 1452-1789.

Quoteand in any case as you point out Latin was the lingua franca of those who were literate and learned.  Especially among the clergy.

Yes, I know that. I have said that a couple of times in my posts in this thread and the reason that I mentioned in my answer to yours because it is related to vernacular usage. That introduction of print didn't do much in several decades. 

QuoteIn any case, it is precisely the clergy and the aristocracy that Rome would have been most worried about because they controlled the local populations, so the church needed to control them.  Need I remind you that Luther was a Roman Catholic priest at the time of the 95 Theses?

Err...yes I have said this too. (I wish you looked at my other posts.) Anyway, if he wasn't a Catholic priest he wouldn't have known the main means of control and wouldn't react to it. This is exactly the reason why he did such a thing and he started something very important. Something beyond Reformation. Linguistic model. E: (Another one is 'caused' by Erasmus which is called Erasmian Solution) And the fact that in his region, 'German' speaking world there was a true chaos; a 'Babel' about the vernaculars contributed to his point.

Martin Luther can be a Catholic priest. That doesn't change the fact that he influenced a style of literature in European history, which today is defined as 'Lutheran solution' that played a key role in spreading ideas, which is directly based of him using his mother tongue. Lutheran solution is an answer to the 'the language question' which is called 'La questione della lingua' because Italians were the first one to express it. From his own texts, we also know he did this very consciously. He also writes about vernaculars, languages and Latin usage and how to reach people. That is his concern. This is very important. "Fuck the clergy, fuck the court; what about people?"

QuoteHow is "what monarchs and their statement do to stay in power" not conscious politics?  Practical politics have been practiced by leaders at all levels functionally since the invention of cities.

I said: "They are not reacting to issues and problems to solve. They react to provide dominance and order." Did you miss that?

No, it is NOT. There is a very big difference between producing conscious policies to solve problems in a region AND politics monarchs produce so their house or dynasty could stay in power.

The former one is the quality of the modern state that came after 1789. The other is as old as human and we still suffrer from it. However, after the invention of the modern state; producing conscious policies for people became neccessary and also beneficial and profitable to the state itself. When that tipping point is passed, you have a developing culture.

This is how STATE and CHURCH got seperated. Before that there is no policy to serve people; to 'nurture' them; to secularise peoples of the lands; civil rights; individualism. Laicism and as a result secularism of the society. In the US, you people call the whole process 'secularism'.

The orginal French idea is that in building laicism the modern state will cause secularism, because there will be a standard in everything. Language, education, law, civil rights...etc. And that's what happened in the West. This is how the West became secular.

QuoteI don't know why you place an arbitrary dividing line at the French revolution --

I am not putting an arbitrary boundry just because it poped out in my mind. According to the modern historical thought, there are no conscious policies before the modern state; French Revolution.  If there are rare ones, we need to emphasize their special circumstances, because it is not the rule, but the exception. Monarchies and Chruch do not solve problems. They assure their dominance in expense of anything possible. Don't let the word 'policies' and 'politics' confuse you. In short, it is not my personal idea.

Quote...sixteen years after the American revolution, which, at least over here, was not about preserving the power of the monarchy.

The US is pretty much irrelavent about the development of secular ideas in this period. (1452-1789) I was talking about Europe.


I removed the paragraph you wrote about reformation. It seems you completely misunderstood what I wrote and the reason for that is, I think you couldn't connect the language issues with spreading of ideas. Which is crucial. I thought you would connect it instantly, that's why I didn't write anything in detail. 

But we actually agree overall. Because my main point was there is no standard education, language or conscioulsy spreading secular ideas before the modern state in the West.

Middle-East is suck about porn. I wish that they could watch porn easyly. Because Turkish people try to fuck carboy, duck, donkey, cow etc.

Quote from: eylul on May 26, 2015, 04:49:14 PM
Middle-East is suck about porn. I wish that they could watch porn easyly. Because Turkish people try to fuck carboy, duck, donkey, cow etc.

Really?  They do that here too, but I'm not really all that familiar with it. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 26, 2015, 05:23:12 PM
Really?  They do that here too, but I'm not really all that familiar with it.

Ahh yes unfortunately. And more. You cant wear mini-skirt in here, if you wear it means that you could be raped and the government and a few artists say that you deserve it. I am in hell, nobody knows it :?

Quote from: eylul on May 26, 2015, 05:39:15 PM
Ahh yes unfortunately. And more. You cant wear mini-skirt in here, if you wear it means that you could be raped and the government and a few artists say that you deserve it. I am in hell, nobody knows it :?

That seems to be the way with most religions.  And cultures.  There are all kinds of taboos.  Seems like you have the mind of a freethinker trapped in very closed society.  Is it possible for you to move to a European country?  Scandinavia?  Or the US or Canada?

Quote from: eylul on May 26, 2015, 05:39:15 PM
Ahh yes unfortunately. And more. You cant wear mini-skirt in here, if you wear it means that you could be raped and the government and a few artists say that you deserve it. I am in hell, nobody knows it :?

If it makes you feel any better... the part of the United States I live in, the family I live in, would agree that wearing mini-skirts means you had getting raped coming.

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 26, 2015, 06:27:14 PM
That seems to be the way with most religions.  And cultures.  There are all kinds of taboos.  Seems like you have the mind of a freethinker trapped in very closed society.  Is it possible for you to move to a European country?  Scandinavia?  Or the US or Canada?

I am studying Chemical Engineering. And its possible to move for university those sountries. They use Nuclear Santrals and they need us. But its hard to make a decision. And i dont have enough english to live i think.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 26, 2015, 07:00:12 PM
If it makes you feel any better... the part of the United States I live in, the family I live in, would agree that wearing mini-skirts means you had getting raped coming.

To be honest, it made me sad :/

Quote from: eylul on May 26, 2015, 07:06:28 PM
To be honest, it made me sad :/

Figured that be the case. Well, just know some of us here know what it's like (though I feel where I live the fundamentalists are still someone moderate compared to yours), but on the other hand there are many great places where they don't have any power or say.

Quote from: eylul on May 26, 2015, 07:05:24 PM
I am studying Chemical Engineering. And its possible to move for university those sountries. They use Nuclear Santrals and they need us. But its hard to make a decision. And i dont have enough english to live i think.

Your English skill is good enough to get along.  And your skill would improve quickly living in a place that speaks it.  I guess the only real problem would be taking instruction in English. I don't know if you could follow along with what a professor was trying to teach if that professor is using English. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 26, 2015, 07:21:07 PM
Your English skill is good enough to get along.  And your skill would improve quickly living in a place that speaks it.  I guess the only real problem would be taking instruction in English. I don't know if you could follow along with what a professor was trying to teach if that professor is using English.

My department is in english already. Chemical english is more easy for me hehe. And as you said i need to do practise.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 26, 2015, 07:16:52 PM
Figured that be the case. Well, just know some of us here know what it's like (though I feel where I live the fundamentalists are still someone moderate compared to yours), but on the other hand there are many great places where they don't have any power or say.

I am sure that you heard about Istanbul and you can be sure, in Istanbul everyday a lot of girls being raped. The day time earlier or later, doesnt matter they no need any reason to rape and tease. So you should be happy that you have a place people dont accept this bullshit. The guys who rape, when you look at their family all of their women have cover on their heads. But rape is normal. This is the way how they are muslims. Because in Turkey people believe in Islam %99. What a religion man!

Quote from: eylul on May 26, 2015, 07:39:07 PM
My department is in english already. Chemical english is more easy for me hehe. And as you said i need to do practise.

Wow!  If you can follow along with a chemistry teacher who teaches in English, you will have no problem communicating in English to anybody who understands that language.  I'm impressed!

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 26, 2015, 08:04:21 PM
Wow!  If you can follow along with a chemistry teacher who teaches in English, you will have no problem communicating in English to anybody who understands that language.  I'm impressed!

Well, I think I am coward and not brave enough :)

Quote from: eylul on May 26, 2015, 08:07:44 PM
Well, I think I am coward and not brave enough :)

I can understand that.  The unknown can be quite frightening.  You'll make a change when the time is right for you.  It will happen.

Quote from: eylul on May 26, 2015, 04:49:14 PM
Middle-East is suck about porn. I wish that they could watch porn easyly. Because Turkish people try to fuck carboy, duck, donkey, cow etc.

Damacana. :lol: There was something like that in ekşi sözlük.

Quote from: eylul on May 26, 2015, 07:56:15 PM
I am sure that you heard about Istanbul and you can be sure, in Istanbul everyday a lot of girls being raped. The day time earlier or later, doesnt matter they no need any reason to rape and tease. So you should be happy that you have a place people dont accept this bullshit. The guys who rape, when you look at their family all of their women have cover on their heads. But rape is normal. This is the way how they are muslims. Because in Turkey people believe in Islam %99. What a religion man!

Rape crime is pretty much the same in America or in Europe.

Exactly like in Turkey, raped women refuse to report it because they get to be blamed about what they were wearing or doing when they were raped. Like wearing mini skirts or get drunk somewhere public when the crime occurred. There are same kind of scandals in Europe where rapists get away with few years. Like what happened in France and England couple of years back. 

Esp. America is not somewhere life goes on how they see in American movies like most Turkish people think. :lol:   

Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 27, 2015, 04:05:26 AM
Damacana. :lol: There was something like that in ekşi sözlük.

yeah we are still speaking about it.
(http://img6.mynet.com/ha7/d/damacanaa1.jpg)

Quote from: eylul on May 27, 2015, 05:46:52 AM
yeah we are still speaking about it.
(http://img6.mynet.com/ha7/d/damacanaa1.jpg)

Sözlük yazarı mısın? Cevap vermek zorunda değilsin elbette, ama zaten burada bilen yoktur. Bizden başka bir tane daha Türk üye var yeni gelen o kadar. Genelde gelip gidiyorlar. Geçmişte de oldu bir kaç tane. Ben uzun zamandır buradayım.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 27, 2015, 06:12:12 AM
Sözlük yazarı mısın? Cevap vermek zorunda değilsin elbette, ama zaten burada bilen yoktur. Bizden başka bir tane daha Türk üye var yeni gelen o kadar. Genelde gelip gidiyorlar. Geçmişte de oldu bir kaç tane. Ben uzun zamandır buradayım.

Yok hayir nerden cikardin?:)

Quote from: eylul on May 27, 2015, 07:59:34 AM
Yok hayir nerden cikardin?:)

Oops, sorry! :)

Quote from: pr126 on May 25, 2015, 05:00:31 AM
Islam from it's start was a violent "religion". It is still as violent as it was 1400 years ago.

Perhaps reformation is the wrong expression. Enlightenment would more desirable, however it is not possible, not for a long time.

In fact, reformation is happening right now, ISIS, Boko haram, Muslim Brotherhood, the Taleban, and the hundreds of other jihadists groups are reforming Islam to it's original form.

Wishing Islam to reform (in our meaning of the word) is a pie in the sky. Not going to happen.
Islam now is rich, strong, focused, and willing to fight and die for Allah.

Waiting for Islam to "mellow" is futile. It won't happen in many generations to come.
Much better is to study their theology, to understand what makes Islam what it is.

Unfortunately the west just doesn't want to know. But know it will. The hard way.

I agree, if you mean by englightenment, getting professing Muslims to essentially stop taking the historic teachings of Islam seriously, then I think you're correct.  That's about the only way that you're going to get away from the violence that is unfortunately inherent with the religion itself.  However, if you get professing Muslims to stop taking the teachings of Islam seriously, at some point it's going to become an absurdity to still carry the name, Muslim.  They would not actually have any significant relationship to actual Islam or being an actual Muslim if they are not taking its historic teachings seriously.  This is why people need to draw a distinction between professing Muslims and genuine Muslims.  Everyone to claims the name is not following the teachings of the religion, even just the basic core of the faith.

Quote from: Munch on May 25, 2015, 05:38:23 AM
From what you've said so far your no authority on what the nature of a religion is.

Well, I haven't claimed to be, but I would guess that I probably know significantly more about it than you.  I could certainly being wrong about that, but I doubt it.  In any case, it doesn't require that I be an authority on Islam.  These things are not hard to search out by doing even just a cursory study of the religion.  I would suggest doing more than simply doing a cursory study, but the point is to check it out and get some real knowledge and understanding.  Check out the Qur'an, the Sunna, the Hadith, etc...

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 27, 2015, 02:33:29 PM
Well, I haven't claimed to be, but I would guess that I probably know significantly more about it than you.  I could certainly being wrong about that, but I doubt it.  In any case, it doesn't require that I be an authority on Islam.  These things are not hard to search out by doing even just a cursory study of the religion.  I would suggest doing more than simply doing a cursory study, but the point is to check it out and get some real knowledge and understanding.  Check out the Qur'an, the Sunna, the Hadith, etc...

You should  check your bible. The old testament is as violent as the koran.

Quote from: SGOS on May 25, 2015, 05:51:00 AM
We can't look at two or three religions that have had violent pasts and conclude all religions follow the path of Christianity.  It's tempting but it's a non sequitur.

You are correct, and since I didn't claim such a thing, we are in full agreement.

Quote from: SGOS on May 25, 2015, 05:51:00 AMChristianity didn't stop being violent until western culture no longer allowed it ultimate power.

Well, there is a distinction to be made here.  Did violence take place at the hand of and often in the name of the Christian God?  Yes, I think that is clear.  The next question is this.  Was that violence in harmony with the Christian scriptures and follow the example of Christ, or were they in contrast to the same?  And lastly, I would urge you to ask yourself what part of that violence is rightly attributed to the founder and teachings within the Christian scripture, and what part likely stems from the men being men of their day and time with the moral development and understanding of their day and time.  When put in perspective, while there is still a need to grapple with the genuine wrong that was done, Christianity emerges looking far different than the purveyor of religious evil it is often taken to be.

In contrast, you can trace Muslim violence, not merely to the day & time of its followers, but you can trace it back to its core philosophical underpinnings, the life of its foundering (i.e. the prophet Muhammed), and the core understood prescriptive doctrines, theology, law, and accepted traditions drawn directly from their most authoritative religious texts (i.e. Qur'an, Sunna, Hadith).

Quote from: SGOS on May 25, 2015, 05:51:00 AMIt has nothing to do with the religion of Christianity naturally evolving into a more peaceful religion on it's own.

I agree, and that wasn't the case that I made either.  It may be true that Christianity became more peaceful when the teachings and traditions of men were self-consciously removed, but that wasn't what I was addressing with regard to Christianity or Islam.  I was simply pointing out the fact that both Christianity and Islam have both had reformations that were similar, in that they sought to get back to the core or pure teachings of the revelation of God itself.  Within Christianity, this turned out to be a very helpful change, as it through off a lot of the corruptions of men.  However, in the case of Islam, it simply returned them to the pure brutality and subjugatory nature of the original Islam, as founded by the prophet Muhammed.

Quote from: SGOS on May 25, 2015, 05:51:00 AMWithout restraints from society, there is no reason to think Christianity wouldn't be imposing itself on the world as it did during the inquisition.

The lessening of abuse on the part of Christians has more to do with an increase in our understanding of how to apply the moral law over time than it does anything else.  You could call that restraints from society, but that is essentially the same thing since the culture of 300 to 500 years ago was infused and suffused with Christian influence and teaching.  In addition, there is no prescriptive teaching in the New Testament that can rightly be applied to a forced conversion process. 

Quote from: SGOS on May 25, 2015, 05:51:00 AMNor can we say that societies naturally evolve into more peaceful societies.  Western culture evolved over 700 years toward a slightly more peaceful society and then came Hitler and Stalin, and American style freedom is fragile and tentative at best.  Just look at forces trying to destroy it right now from within.

While I don't know if this can be taken as incontrovertibly true, I think I can agree with you.  I doubt that western society would have evolved in the way that it did with regard to peace and freedom without the existence of Christianity.  So I would tend to agree, that it was probably unlikely to happen naturally.  Having said that, this is a probabilistic view rather than a necessary or purely logical conclusion.  Oh, and as an aside, Western culture was developing for longer than 700 years before Hitler and Stalin.

Quote from: SGOS on May 25, 2015, 05:51:00 AMSo we can't say evolutions of societies or evolutions of religions all follow natural paths toward openness, peace, and freedom.  The Arab world went from the center of intellectual achievement to the backwards system it is today.  There was no linear progression at all.  I think we would all like to believe such a linear progression for the entire world exists, myself included, but I don't see enough data to convince me that this is true.

Well, here you're responding to a case that I didn't and wasn't making.  Having said that, a helpful book that does touch on the differing paths that Islam could've taken but didn't is The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis by Robert R. Reilly.  I would highly encourage you and others to check it out.

Quote from: trdsf on May 25, 2015, 07:44:26 AM
It might be worth noting that Islam is at about the same age that Catholicism was when the Inquisition really took off.  It might be a trait of proselytizing religions, a 15th century itch, something like that.

It might also be worth noting that during the 15th century AD you had the introduction of movable type printing in Europe, and during the 15th century AH you had the introduction of wide public usage of the Internet and the World Wide Web.  I cannot help but wonder if the sudden ability to get ideas from far afield of one's church or mosque triggered the violent and repressive reactions from the respective religious authorities.

I think you're keying in on an important reason why Islamic ideology has spread so rapidly across so much of the world that it couldn't before due to linguistic and communication difficulties that were eased and/or erased by the invention and spread of the internet from 1994 onward.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 25, 2015, 12:41:44 PM
Call me a heretic, but I feel that atheists tend to have this very biased view that scientists were (and are) all that influential, or at least just-as influential, then the slew of huge name reformists who weren't (and aren't) scientists.

It wasn't the science of John Locke or Descartes that lead to change, but the philosophy. Spinoza and Rousseau were huge influences on the secularization of the society, and yet they were not scientists at all. Nor were Voltaire, Hume, Petrarca scientists. And men like Martin Luther and Henry VIII caused huge rifts in the church and changed the idea of the infallibility of the church.

The Renaissance's greatest influence on secularization had almost nothing to do with science, and I'm not sure why people consider that a huge part of it. The hugest thing was a rediscovering of the Greek classics that emphasized the beauty of man. And during this time you see art boom with murals and paintings and sculptures that exalt man as this divine being, which was a huge shift from the previous hundreds of years in Christdom where man was worthless and pathetic to god.

I'm not saying science doesn't play a part, it certainly does, but it is education in general and, more importantly, art and philosophy that have had extreme influences on the changing mindset of society since the medieval times.

I think we want to look at society and said, "Factor A + B caused the change", whereas the simple truth is that society is never as simple as that. It is more like, "Factor A, B, C, D, E, F, G... AA, BBB, CCCCCC, GGGGGGGGGG, all combined, changed society.".

Science has largely dismissed the contributions of philosophy, though I'm sure that would be denied.  But if one just reads a little ways into Hawking's The Grand Design to get a sense of that.  It leaves us with an entirely deterministic universe, in which everything, including the contents of the book itself, become meaningless.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 26, 2015, 07:00:12 PM
If it makes you feel any better... the part of the United States I live in, the family I live in, would agree that wearing mini-skirts means you had getting raped coming.

Fortunately, I don't know anyone like that, but I do know people that would agree that it's not a good idea to unduly entice or otherwise tempt whatever rapists might be out there.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 27, 2015, 02:57:20 PM

Well, there is a distinction to be made here.  Did violence take place at the hand of and often in the name of the Christian God?  Yes, I think that is clear.  The next question is this.  Was that violence in harmony with the Christian scriptures and follow the example of Christ, or were they in contrast to the same?  And lastly, I would urge you to ask yourself what part of that violence is rightly attributed to the founder and teachings within the Christian scripture, and what part likely stems from the men being men of their day and time with the moral development and understanding of their day and time.  When put in perspective, while there is still a need to grapple with the genuine wrong that was done, Christianity emerges looking far different than the purveyor of religious evil it is often taken to be.

In contrast, you can trace Muslim violence, not merely to the day & time of its followers, but you can trace it back to its core philosophical underpinnings, the life of its foundering (i.e. the prophet Muhammed), and the core understood prescriptive doctrines, theology, law, and accepted traditions drawn directly from their most authoritative religious texts (i.e. Qur'an, Sunna, Hadith).
I agree, and that wasn't the case that I made either.  It may be true that Christianity became more peaceful when the teachings and traditions of men were self-consciously removed, but that wasn't what I was addressing with regard to Christianity or Islam.  I was simply pointing out the fact that both Christianity and Islam have both had reformations that were similar, in that they sought to get back to the core or pure teachings of the revelation of God itself.  Within Christianity, this turned out to be a very helpful change, as it through off a lot of the corruptions of men.  However, in the case of Islam, it simply returned them to the pure brutality and subjugatory nature of the original Islam, as founded by the prophet Muhammed.

The lessening of abuse on the part of Christians has more to do with an increase in our understanding of how to apply the moral law over time than it does anything else.  You could call that restraints from society, but that is essentially the same thing since the culture of 300 to 500 years ago was infused and suffused with Christian influence and teaching.

:rotflmao:

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 27, 2015, 03:13:22 PM
Fortunately, I don't know anyone like that, but I do know people that would agree that it's not a good idea to unduly entice or otherwise tempt whatever rapists might be out there.

You just presented someone who thinks like that. Yourself.

E: Don't dare to come back with 'I said I do know people..."

Quote from: leo on May 27, 2015, 02:54:09 PM
                                                                                                                                                     You should  check your bible. The old testament is as violent as the koran.

Again, distinctions are important, otherwise we are believing false things and purveying untruths.  I'm sure you'd rather not do that.

1) The Old Testament was prescriptive for the Jews, and not prescriptive for Christians in the same way.

2) The violence in the Old Testament occurred as a specific period in history and was never considered to be prescriptive for the Jews into the future.  They were specific commands for that day.

3) Many of the violent commands and teachings in the Qur'an, Sunna, and Hadith are considered prescriptive from the time of Muhammed and on into the future.  In addition, the later and more violent teachings of the Prophet are considered to possess a greater prescriptive authority than the more peaceful passages from earlier in His life.

4) You cannot find the examples of violence you cite in the life of Christ, which is at least partially responsible for the tendency amongst Christians to favor peace and even to the point of falling into error on the side of pacifism.

Keep these kinds of things in mind when you decide to make easy comparisons devoid of appropriate context.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 27, 2015, 03:14:49 PM
:rotflmao:

I think you are into something here. Maybe he is a Poe.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 27, 2015, 03:15:41 PM
You just presented someone who thinks like that. Yourself.

E: Don't dare to come back with 'I said I do know people..."

Um, no I didn't.  The idea that a woman deserves to be raped because of the clothes she is wearing is reprehensible and immoral.  The idea that it is not a good idea to entice or tempt someone who might be given to harming you by wearing something excessively revealing is at least something to think about in terms of prudence.  If you think those two things are the same or identical, then I'm not sure what can be done.  All I can do is clearly state that they are not the same, and that I do not hold to the view you suggest.  I would appreciate it if you would attempt to avoid misrepresenting me in the future.

The way he writes, the way he uses sentences and the way he is deflecting, taking turns, squeezing preachings between... actually saying nothing, but just preaching; spewing bullshit around. They all sound the same. They all speak exactly the same. Muslim, Christian... And they all think they are different.  :oak:

"Tempting rapists". And this man is a cop.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 27, 2015, 03:25:16 PM
Um, no I didn't.  The idea that a woman deserves to be raped because of the clothes she is wearing is reprehensible and immoral.  The idea that it is not a good idea to entice or tempt someone who might be given to harming you by wearing something excessively revealing is at least something to think about in terms of prudence. If you think those two things are the same or identical, then I'm not sure what can be done.  All I can do is clearly state that they are not the same, and that I do not hold to the view you suggest.  I would appreciate it if you would attempt to avoid misrepresenting me in the future.

You represent yourself very good. You just have no idea what is wrong with it. Which fits your position perfectly.

You are full of toxic shit and you are spewing that around with a way of speaking that turns my stomach upside down that I can hear with exactly the same delivery, same shit salad, if I turn on some TV channel, here, in a muslim country. Don't expect any respect from me.

Quote from: leo on May 27, 2015, 03:22:47 PM
                                                                                                                                         I think you are into something here. Maybe he is a Poe.

I don't think so. Esp. not after that 'tempting rapists' statements. He is a believer of an Abrahamic religion alright.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 27, 2015, 03:22:11 PM
Again, distinctions are important, otherwise we are believing false things and purveying untruths.  I'm sure you'd rather not do that.

1) The Old Testament was prescriptive for the Jews, and not prescriptive for Christians in the same way.

2) The violence in the Old Testament occurred as a specific period in history and was never considered to be prescriptive for the Jews into the future.  They were specific commands for that day.

3) Many of the violent commands and teachings in the Qur'an, Sunna, and Hadith are considered prescriptive from the time of Muhammed and on into the future.  In addition, the later and more violent teachings of the Prophet are considered to possess a greater prescriptive authority than the more peaceful passages from earlier in His life.

4) You cannot find the examples of violence you cite in the life of Christ, which is at least partially responsible for the tendency amongst Christians to favor peace and even to the point of falling into error on the side of pacifism.

Keep these kinds of things in mind when you decide to make easy comparisons devoid of appropriate context.

1)  The Old Testament is considered the  infallible word of god by all christians. In the Old Testament you find Yahweh ( war god ) commanded to kill everyone that break his stupid rules. Your god is okay with slavery , killing rival tribes and raping the other tribes women .  The truth is that christards cherry pick from the Old Testament passages that suit their agenda. Paul the creator of christianity is the one that made up the concept that christians can ignore the Old Testament rules.                                                                                       2. WRONG. The Old Testament rules are meant to be follow by all jews generations. The Jews don't think Yahweh would change his mind
3. Muhammed created islam mixing the old pagan arab elements with Judaism and some elements of
Christianity. Again there isn't difference between Koran  and the Old Testament.                                                         4. Jesus claimed he never came to abolished the old law.  He came to fulfill the old law. He also claimed to bring the sword instead of peace. The history of christianity contradict your bullshit assertions about Christians. Your  claim of how peaceful christians are is a huge joke. Maybe some christians are peaceful but many of them aren't.                                                                                 

Quote from: leo on May 27, 2015, 03:46:50 PM1)  The Old Testament is considered the  infallible word of god by all christians. In the Old Testament you find Yahweh ( war god ) commanded to kill everyone that break his stupid rules. Your god is okay with slavery , killing rival tribes and raping the other tribes women .  The truth is that christards cherry pick from the Old Testament passages that suit their agenda. Paul the creator of christianity is the one that made up the concept that christians can ignore the Old Testament rules.

This is false.  It is not true that all Christians hold to the concept of infallibility.  There are two general concepts regarding the Bible's accuracy (i.e. 1. Infallibility & 2. Inerrancy).  To the extent that all Christians hold to one of these two concepts, most hold to inerrancy, not infallibility.  IN addition, these are significantly differing concepts that would require actual study of the topic for you to understand.  Entire book length treatments have been written.  Additionally, it should be pointed out that there are Christians who hold to neither of these concepts.  Please keep that in mind before making pronouncements.  The rest of what you said is simply not true.  All people who broke God's law were not killed or commanded to be killed.  Failure to condemn an act or an institution does not equate to approval.  That is a non-sequitar.  Paul was not the only writer of the New Testament, and Jesus was probably the primary person responsible for the distinction between the Old & New Testaments.  In addition, if you want to object to someone's point of view or religion, you're going to have to do so on the basis of wha they actually believe.  You cannot simply arrive with a caricature of your own creation and pretend that it is a Christian view.  God made a covenant with the Jews that did not include gentiles.  He also made a New Convenant with humanity more broadly through Jesus Christ.  He also communicated with humanity through revelation at particular times.  Both in terms of time gaps and in terms of the changing or New Convenant, as well as for various other logical, philosophical, and theological reasons; the division between the Old & New Testament is entirely justified.  Your ignorance on the topic does not constitute a legitimate objection.

Quote from: leo on May 27, 2015, 03:46:50 PM2. WRONG. The Old Testament rules are meant to be follow by all jews generations. The Jews don't think Yahweh would change his mind.

This is false.  The commands to kill particular people or groups of people were prescriptive for a specific period of time.  This is not a controversial statement.  As for some of the more violent aspects of the law, I think you are probably correct.  Having said that, many of the Jews rejected their Messiah and have seen fit to infuse and suffuse it with the teachings of men.  In so doing, they do follow different standards today than they did then.  Having said that, it has nothing to do with Christianity, as Christians aren't bound by the Jewish civil and ceremonial laws.

Quote from: leo on May 27, 2015, 03:46:50 PM3. Muhammed created islam mixing the old pagan arab elements with Judaism and some elements of Christianity. Again there isn't difference between Koran and the Old Testament.

You description of what Muhammed did is relatively accurate.  Your understanding beyond that is almost nonexistent.  There are significant differences between the Qur'an and the Old Testament.  In the first place, Jews do not have a prescriptive theology of violence.  Islam does.  In the second place, the Old Testament is not considered to be the final revelation of God to mankind by either the Jews, Christians, or the Muslims, but the Qur'an is considered to be the final and perfect word of God to man by Muslims.  Those two major differences alone set them apart substantially.  They are also set part by the languages in which they were recorded, as well as historical and manuscript attestation.  That they are both Holy books descended or related to the Abrahamic faith is about as far as it goes.

Quote from: leo on May 27, 2015, 03:46:50 PM4. Jesus claimed he never came to abolished the old law.  He came to fulfill the old law. He also claimed to bring the sword instead of peace. The history of christianity contradict your bullshit assertions about Christians. Your  claim of how peaceful christians are is a huge joke. Maybe some christians are peaceful but many of them aren't.

Yes, he fulfilled or brought what the Old Testament law looked forward to into fruition in the provision of His life for our sin. This fact does not mean that we must still follow laws that look forward to something that has already happened.  This is an uncontroversial piece of Christian theology.  Your desire and willingness to re-define it for your own purposes doesn't do anything to make it true.  And yes, Christ did say that He came to bring the sword, and He was clear in the sense that He meant it to.  He did not mean and it has never been understood that He was advocating that Christians do violence, but He was indicating and warning that following Him had the potential to set you against your wife, children, mother, father, brother, sister, and friends.  In other words, If you follow Him, it may cost you everything that you hold dear.  Again, your misconstrual of a long held and widely understood concept within Christianity won't do anything to change its actual meaning or how Christians understand it.  I suggest you attempt to represent those with whom you disagree, fairly.  The dishonesty with which you are currently operating simply undermines your case.

Are you fucking serious?

1. Christians regard all the bible books as inspired , as the word of god.  In another words,  they believe god dictated his thoughts to the human authors. You should read your bible from cover to cover. In a lot of passages,   god commanded Moses and his followers to kill people from breaking stupid rules ( like working on the sabbath) etc . God is okay with Moses and his followers killing rival tribes and raping the rival tribe women etc . God is okay with slavery . There is a long chapter in Exodus in how to threat slaves. Women are treated as objects and god is okay with that.  God is supposed to be a perfect and moral being. Obviously this not the case. Most people this days  are more compassionate and more moral than your god of war Yahveh. By the way,  god never made a covenant with the Jews because Judaism like (all religions)  is  man made. Your god doesn't make a new covenant with Jesus. Christianity is another man made religion. You are accusing me of ignorance . You don't know what I know.  I have read about christianity and other religions. I could make extensive posts citing the bible texts and others books about religion. The truth is that you aren't worth it. You are  a deluded person and evidence will not change your mind. By the way , English isn't my first language but I can easily kick your ass in a debate about Christianity and the origins of religion in my native language.                     2. You are wrong again. The Old Testament or the Torah is meant to be the eternal law follow by all jews generations. Jews reject Jesus as the messiah because he don't fullfill  and accomplished what the messiah was supposed to do. Again the idea that  the Torah can be ignored by christians was created by Paul the real founder of christianity.  When talking about law , I'm not talking about the killing of people for breaking god stupid rules. I'm talking about the rules themselves. The Torah is meant to be follow by all jews generations until their Messiah comes.                                                                       3. You like to make wild assumptions , about atheism and now about me. You don't know what I know about Islam. To say the jews don't have the theology of violence is a lie. The Old Testament has many passages of violence from people breaking the Torah rules. And god commanded the Jews to conquer other tribes and slaughter all people including children.                                     4. A christian accusing me of dishonesty is hilarious. You are making wild claims about christianity being a peaceful religion without any evidence. The history of christianity proves the contrary. When christians had total power,  they crushed everyone dangerous to the established order. Many people died or were persecuted because they challenged  the orthodoxy.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 25, 2015, 02:16:22 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCDxhyc2bvE

A good question came up in this video, and I'm paraphrasing because it's a video and not written down, but "is it because Islam is 700 years younger that they are more immature and not past their bad period of violence?" :think:

I do think that the age of Islam might have a bit to do with its violence because in the younger days of Christianity and Judaism those religions were just as violent as Islam is now, also to my knowledge Islam has not had any major reformations to the religion where as Christianity has had several resulting in thousands of different denominations.  I don't think the fact that it was founded by a warmonger makes it any more violent, atleast not when compared to Judaism because one of Judaism's most important prophets was Moses who was also a warmonger.  Also to my knowledge none of the mostly Islamic countries have had any feminist movements or movements to combat the underlying issues with Islam.