Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is

Subscribed!

jambot wrote: Some variants of communism have indeed seen the power of organised religion as a potential counter-revolutionary force. However I would make two observations - firstly that atheism is a by-product of communism rather than vice-versa, and as such it's much more realistic to see such persecution as politically inspired rather than due to atheistic 'faith' based fervour; this is evidenced by the fact that it was the agents of the temporal authority that were persecuted, rather than individual adherents of the faith. Stalin for instance may have an atheist, but I can't find any examples of atheism as the basis for a political regime.

How can atheism be a by-product of communism when it has existed since before communism?

Secondly I think the argument that atheism is merely a guise to get rid of a certain part of the population that could cause trouble for the powerful, could easily be spun around to represent extremist using religion to do the same.

Lastly, Stalin did not have anything to do with the development of the communist philosophy, that was Marx, and Engel.

Rightey wrote:How can atheism be a by-product of communism when it has existed since before communism?

That's not what I was saying. Atheism per se is in almost every sense the absense of theism - it is simply the non-existence of faith. It is thus clearly not a product of communism in a general sense. 'By-product' is not the same as 'invented by'. What I was talking about is perhaps better described as iconoclasm, or more generally an antipathy towards organised religions. These things weren't invented by communism political theorists either. And my point was simply this - that communist regimes have been hostile towards organised religions as agents of civil resistance, rather than, as has been the case with religious inquisitions, hunting down individual thought criminals.

Secondly I think the argument that atheism is merely a guise to get rid of a certain part of the population that could cause trouble for the powerful, could easily be spun around to represent extremist using religion to do the same.

How exactly is stoning to death a woman for infidelity rid the ruling elite of a powerful enemy? This is the punishment of a 'thought crime'. Dismantling the apparatus of the catholic church in any of its guises is power politics.

Lastly, Stalin did not have anything to do with the development of the communist philosophy, that was Marx, and Engel.

I can't be bothered to argue with this. It's irrelevant, a misrepresentation of both fact and what I have written. I have an MA Hons (Oxon) in History*. If you do too, by all means, let's continue this academic nicety; otherwise let's stick to the point. Stalin wasn't bad because he was an atheist. And he did nothing in the name of atheism.

*edit: Actually this sounds pretty bad on reflection. I only raise this because you seem so utterly intent of giving me series of half-arsed history lectures, which are neither wanted nor needed. Or correct. And not so much because I'm pompous. Oh no.

jambot wrote:
Rightey wrote:How can atheism be a by-product of communism when it has existed since before communism?

That's not what I was saying. Atheism per se is in almost every sense the absense of theism - it is simply the non-existence of faith. It is thus clearly not a product of communism in a general sense. 'By-product' is not the same as 'invented by'. What I was talking about is perhaps better described as iconoclasm, or more generally an antipathy towards organised religions. These things weren't invented by communism political theorists either. And my point was simply this - that communist regimes have been hostile towards organised religions as agents of civil resistance, rather than, as has been the case with religious inquisitions, hunting down individual thought criminals.

Perhaps my point there was a bit too subtle, I was trying to imply that in the same way that atheism was not created by communism, religions are generally not created by the government in charge, although Islam I suppose would be an exception here.

jambot wrote:
Secondly I think the argument that atheism is merely a guise to get rid of a certain part of the population that could cause trouble for the powerful, could easily be spun around to represent extremist using religion to do the same.

How exactly is stoning to death a woman for infidelity rid the ruling elite of a powerful enemy? This is the punishment of a 'thought crime'. Dismantling the apparatus of the catholic church in any of its guises is power politics.

Although I'm sure the village priest would have a bit more authority than some other random person, the point is still the same. People being killed, and tortured because they choose to hold a religion. Also, although obviously stoning is a horrible thing you could have tried to at least come up with a better example of a "thought crime".

jambot wrote:
Lastly, Stalin did not have anything to do with the development of the communist philosophy, that was Marx, and Engel.

I can't be bothered to argue with this. It's irrelevant, a misrepresentation of both fact and what I have written. I have an MA Hons (Oxon) in History. If you do too, by all means, let's continue this academic nicety; otherwise let's stick to the point. Stalin wasn't bad because he was an atheist. And he did nothing in the name of atheism.

Well please forgive me your most high and exhausted history major. Obviously since you have a degree in the subject any debate with you would instantly be rendered pointless as I'm sure you have the ability to recite from memory every recorded event in history from the time of the ancient Greeks to what happened yesterday in the Australian parliament.

wanker

I love Jambot. He puts things in such an eloquent manner, I couldn't even begin to argue the same points he does and make it seem significant.

Perhaps my point there was a bit too subtle, I was trying to imply that in the same way that atheism was not created by communism, religions are generally not created by the government in charge, although Islam I suppose would be an exception here.

Religion that isn't invented as a method of population control is an exception to the rule. Although it was only to A level standard, I studied Classical Civilisation, and the notion of using a fabricated religion was very common in Greece circa 400-500 BC. Politicians at the time (same sort as we have today, with one or two shining stars that quickly fizzle out as the corrupt folk extinguish them) realised they faced a potentially rebellious populace, thanks to the work of Socrates (legend) who taught individuals how to think for themselves. They enforced the idea that deities controlled all aspects of life - some may govern sex, some may govern war, and so on. They said that a refusal to follow the word of these gods would result in an afterlife in Tartarus in the Underworld - Ancient Greece's equivalent of Hell. Exemplary folk in society would go to the Elysian Fields, the equivalent of Heaven.

Of course, telling people there's a bad place to go and a good place to go immediately injects fear into the population, and for as long as this goes unquestioned, people will bend to the rules of the state so they avoid - in the case of Classical Greece - Tartarus.

Religion was invented because people are selfish by nature. They only truly care about what will happen to themselves. So if you say heaven can be reached by doing good, followers will only do good so they go to this heaven.

So yeah, I argue that religion is, in its absolute entirety, a government construct. It's population control at its best. That isn't to say that atheism is the most practical counter to such an invention. Atheism can be used in much the same way. However, and "at the end of the day", you tend to choose your own faith, and that - and only that - cannot be validly debated.

Pat Condell, on the otherhand, seems to subscribe to the view that all religion is nothing but evil, and only his way is the path to the better future. And it's complete bullshit. He has a hatred of religion (not going to dispute that, it's his opinion), and a hatred of religion is the equivalent to the extremists' view that any belief other than their own is wrong.

Charles Manson wrote:Religion was invented because people are selfish by nature. They only truly care about what will happen to themselves. So if you say heaven can be reached by doing good, followers will only do good so they go to this heaven.

So yeah, I argue that religion is, in its absolute entirety, a government construct. It's population control at its best.

I dispute how conclusive that statement is. A far more basic theory about the invention of religion is that it served a purpose to quench our natural curiosity of the world around us. The people couldn't scientifically prove anything, so came to a conclusion that didn't need proof and was all-encompassing: God. I think your statement would make a lot more sense with the word 'organised' in front of the word 'religion'.

Charles Manson wrote:Pat Condell, on the otherhand, seems to subscribe to the view that all religion is nothing but evil, and only his way is the path to the better future. And it's complete bullshit. He has a hatred of religion (not going to dispute that, it's his opinion), and a hatred of religion is the equivalent to the extremists' view that any belief other than their own is wrong.

Have you watched all of his videos? Maybe you came to a different conclusion to me, but I really didn't find his views extreme at all except in a clearly comedic fashion. In fact I recall Condell saying in one video that he didn't have a problem with people being religious, he just doesn't like (or if you'd prefer to use the melodramtic term 'hates') organised religions getting special treatment or demanding special respect and that I respect about him.

I admit I didn't watch all of the videos, as after the one linked to in the first post, I've had no inclination to. I've said a couple of times it's not the sort of thing I'd enjoy watching (as I'd find more and more ways to rip his thoughts apart in some contrived way or another :lol:

).

I would also say, as an addendum to my previous post, that when I talk about religion on such a general scale, my focal point is organised religion: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, whatever. Anything with a ruling 'church' that places itself above any "religion-agnostic" law. I can understand that people would conclude otherwise without me putting in the specifics, as my wording can be a little vague at times.

Howver, my point still remains that - for better or worse - religion is a means to keep the population in check. It can be a good thing as we can speculate that, without the precedents set by religion, murder and rape may be deemed acceptable by the populace. It can also be a bad thing, as the idea can be taken too far and it can intrude on things that the populace may think are irrelevant to the business of the state. The key is finding the balance, and it's human nature to crave power if you're in the position, so balance isn't going to remain in tact for long until the ruling body goes out of control. You could argue that the typical election system (the maximum two year term in America, the four yearly election in the UK, classical Greece's maximum of two lifetime appearances in the Boule, etc.) counters this by ensuring no one person can legally hold a dictatorship (in a subscribing country) but even then, the ideals - be they religious or otherwise - will take priority in the mind of the leading body, and then we see the things we're experiencing today. I'm sure Cal's plentiful topics will highlight some of the contentious issues.

I'd also like to point out that I'm a little tipsy, so if that doesn't make sense, well, blame the beer. :lol:

Or me.

Charles Manson wrote: The key is finding the balance, and it's human nature to crave power if you're in the position, so balance isn't going to remain in tact for long until the ruling body goes out of control.

What about the Orthodox church? That's been essentially the same church for nearly 2000 years. It was always kept in check by the government and never given the more outlandish privileges of the Catholic church, why the hell does the pope need an army for, the only reason for the split between Russian and Greek sects was physical separation due to the invasion of the Ottoman empire.

Also I thought of an example were Joe everyman could get in trouble for practising a religion under atheist rule, the banning of Christmas in Cuba from 1967 to 1999.

Times Online wrote:The Sunday Times | August 31, 2008

Women preachers at moderate mosque ‘urge faithful to kill gays’

Women preachers are urging followers at one of Britain’s most influential mosques to kill homosexuals and view all non-Muslims as “vile”, according to a television documentary.

The London Central Mosque and Islamic Cultural Centre, known as the Regent’s Park Mosque, is one of the most respected centres for moderate Islam in western Europe.

However, an undercover investigation by the Channel 4 Dispatches programme has found extremist preachers have held study circles there and are teaching followers a hardline version of the faith followed in Saudi Arabia, known as Wahhabism.

The documentary, to be broadcast tomorrow, is a follow-up to Undercover Mosque, which investigated a number of mosques and was made by the same team more than a year ago. That resulted in an investigation by West Midlands Police, who accused the makers of distorting sermons and inflaming tensions. Officers took no action against extremist preachers whose words were broadcast. Ofcom rejected the complaint and the force had to apologise to Channel 4. It agreed at the High Court to pay £100,000 for libel.

In the new documentary, a female reporter infiltrated women’s study circles. In one, a preacher using the name Umm Amira told followers: “We are not going to be like animals . . . or to be like the homosexuals, God save us from that, you understand? We have to take the judgment, the judgment is to kill them.”

Umm Amira is recorded as saying converts from Islam should also be killed. “He is Muslim and he gets out of Islam, he doesn’t want any more. What are we going to do? We kill him, kill, kill.”

In another study circle, Umm Amira describes Christians as “vile”. Another preacher, Umm Saleem, tells her congregation not to take British citizenship or become friends with nonMuslims.

In the programme, Ahmed Al-Dubayan, the mosque’s director, said the women were not authorised by the mosque.

The preachers could not be reached this weekend, but Umm Saleem told Channel 4: “We are not blind followers of any government or any clerics.

We criticise other religions, just as other religions criticise Islam . . . we encourage integration into society.”

The Muslim Council of Britain, of which the mosque is an affiliate, said: “Some of the statements are deeply offensive . . . [but] it would be very wrong, and quite unfair, to smear the whole centre.”

You decide. Moderate or completely out of f*cking control? Hmmmm. But don't be too shocked - the Saudis already kill their gay children by public execution, so there's really nothing new about this, except for the fact they'd like to start butchering ours. I've had it up to here with 'moderate' muslims stepping forward to excuse crimes - yes, crimes - that would have been arrestable offences had these people been anything other than militant, fundamentalist Muslims.

Rightey wrote:Perhaps my point there was a bit too subtle, I was trying to imply that in the same way that atheism was not created by communism, religions are generally not created by the government in charge, although Islam I suppose would be an exception here.

Sorry, I'm trying to follow your line of reasoning, I really am. My original assertion was that living under regimes which espouse a link between church and state has almost invariably resulted in an erosion of individual liberties throughout history. Are you OK with that, or do you wish to contradict it?

Although I'm sure the village priest would have a bit more authority than some other random person, the point is still the same. People being killed, and tortured because they choose to hold a religion. Also, although obviously stoning is a horrible thing you could have tried to at least come up with a better example of a "thought crime".

The principal exponents of the persecution of individuals for their religious beliefs have been, by far and a way, other religious groups. It was catholics and protestants fighting each other who provided the darkest days in this country's history of religious persecution. If you want a more modern example, it wasn't until 1926 and the 2nd Catholic Relief Act that Roman Catholics could freely stand for election in England. And this was based on the need to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch as the temporal head of a Protestant church (as defined by adherence to the 49 articles). And this same principle effectively debarred catholics from English universities until the end of the C19th.

high and exhausted

Exalted? Dimwit.

Rightey wrote:Also I thought of an example were Joe everyman could get in trouble for practising a religion under atheist rule, the banning of Christmas in Cuba from 1967 to 1999.

It's not exactly the Spanish Inquisition is it?

Charles Manson wrote:Howver, my point still remains that - for better or worse - religion is a means to keep the population in check. It can be a good thing as we can speculate that, without the precedents set by religion, murder and rape may be deemed acceptable by the populace.

I'm not sure I can agree with this either, particularly because a lot of murder was committed in the name of organised religion at the time you talk about. My main concern about your point though is the implication that morality comes from organised religion, which is scienfifically incorrect. It might be a good time to say that I'm stealing this entire argument from many different atheists, just so nobody gets upset that I'm trying to claim this for myself! Altruism is common among many animal groups, such as the family system or the Alpha male gathering food for the group seen in many ape/monkey species. We decide what is moral based on what has been called 'the moral zeitgiest', the ever-changing common opinion and this fundamentally comes from the altruism that the human species has had since the first monkey-man. Ask a Christian who believes his/her morality comes directly from his religion if he approves of the horrific behaviour of God in the Old Testament and unless he's a complete fruit loop, he'll tell you no and in a lot of cases he'll be an apologist for the book by blathering about metaphors. Then ask him/her how he decides which part of his Holy book to follow.

Last edited by mic on Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

(see below :oops:

)

Again though, these are not examples of religious activity being banned because of atheism or atheist doctrines (there being no such thing being quite a major factor), but just being banned by atheists.

So far, no example brought up has been done in the name of atheism, simply done by atheists in the name of some other cause like communism. They have been done because one set of doctrines (religious or otherwise) could potentially upset the ruling doctrine (communist, socialist or whatever).

Cal wrote:
Times Online wrote:...“We are not going to be like animals . . . or to be like the homosexuals, God save us from that, you understand? We have to take the judgment, the judgment is to kill them.”...“What are we going to do? We kill him, kill, kill.”...

I'm sure she'd love you, cal, if she just got to know you!

So anyway, on the basis of this one lady's opinion, (which happens to be unfortunately what she really believes), you would do... what, exactly? Kill her first? Silence her opinions? Send her back where she came from and then nuke the site from orbit (because as you and I both know, "It's the only way to be sure...")?

Also, jambot, I'm quite sure we've had this dance before but my moves are a bit rusty (as if I could compete with your MA Hons (Oxon, no less!) in History!), so perhaps it's time for a lesson? What about all that fuss made over certain American doctors advocating and eventually practicing eugenics while using 'survival of the fittest' and other atheistic 'beliefs' as justification - and all this BEFORE the Nazi's caught wind of the 'benefits' of sterilisation and euthanasia!?[/quote]

Just so we're clear atheism has no beliefs inherent to it. That's the whole point. Evolution, survival of the fittest, the selfish gene; these are not atheistic beliefs, that's an oxymoron, they're scientific ideas to be evaluated on an individual basis and to be criticised accordingly.

Just because something is carried out by an atheist it does not necessarily follow that it is an atheistic idea.

mic wrote:quote="Cal"]What about all that fuss made over certain American doctors advocating and eventually practicing eugenics while using 'survival of the fittest' and other atheistic 'beliefs' as justification - and all this BEFORE the Nazi's caught wind of the 'benefits' of sterilisation and euthanasia!?

Atheists have only one common 'belief' (and I do dislike how confusing this word can be in a debate like this) and that is the disbelief in any deity. Just because one atheist or even a group of atheists practice eugenics, it does not mean this is a 'belief' of the common atheist. If your point was to draw someone into this in order to say "my point exactly, not all Christians or Muslims want to execute homosexuals" then I must counter with the point that both 'Holy' books regard homosexuality in the same way the woman in 'Undercover Mosque' does at least in parts. Really, you're supposed to think like that. There is no way an atheistic should think to be an atheist other than having a disbelief in any deity.

EDIT: Beaten to it by Skarjo.

Phatman wrote:...Ask a Christian... and unless he's a complete fruit loop, he'll tell you...

Now just hold on one minute - I resent that statement! I object to your prevarication! I am outraged by your dismissal of my beliefs as crazy and I do not apologise for it!!! Oh, all right... just one little apology - I'm sorry that my beliefs are so offensive to your sense of rationality.

Precisely. There is no atheist book of beliefs or guidelines or rules. This is the major difference. An atheist may put a million Christians to death for opposing him, but there is nothing inherent to the idea of atheism that would justify this. There is no guideline for atheism that permits or justifies or encourages and kind of specific action.

The same cannot be said of the reverse. If a Christian beats a homosexual to death he can always point to Leviticus and say that is justified. This is the problem.

Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is

Who is online

Affiliates