'Pulling the rug' from under the feet of "peacecful believers"?

[Dystopia]

Pretext Mystic, pretext.  It's utility has never been lost.  What are -all- of the jihadis claiming to be doing?  

I don't disagree with the hypothetical conclusion if your question and as such I'm not going to claim that religion doesn't kill people, but do you think it is a coincidence that certain environments create more Jihadists? Do you believe the fact environments where you can find more Jihadists often suffered military interventions, civil wars/conflicts and had to deal with corrupt politicians like Saddam Hussein?

[mralstoner]

Sure, I want to try and get along with these "peaceful believers" and, sure, the government needs to protect people against hate crime but I don't think being intellectually honest is pulling any rugs from under the feet of the "peaceful believers", do you? The believes need to stop denying the content that's in the Quran. Believers need realize that the Quran is arguably as bad as the Old Testament in terms of violence. Each time I turn a new page in my Quran I'm worried about what concerning verses I'll find next.

It's actually very offensive and humiliating for peaceful Muslims to be told that they aren't the true Muslims but, rather, they are flag bearers for a truly repulsive head-chopping religion.

It would be like telling peaceful white folks their clothing is a Nazi uniform.

This is the reason why Obama defends Islam from "negative stereotypes", because Muslims are his close family and friends, and he has an Arab middle name. So he feels the humiliation personally and thus will not entertain any idea that Islam might be inherently violent.

But it's all a moot point, in my book, because Islam is unreformable. And because people only shift camps when there's a clear alternative. Atheism is not an alternative for most folks because it's too undefined and individualistic.

If you want a REAL solution, look to the humanist movement. People don't abandon their tradition/religion until they find a well established, well organised, articulate, compelling, and secure movement to turn towards. The humanist movement needs to be strong before it becomes a compelling alternative.

The only exceptions are strong individuals like you find on atheist forums who can make the transition themselves. But many people are herd animals and need a well established alternative before they change their whole way of life.

So, the answer is less about criticising Islam, and more about creating a thriving humanist movement that converts people by the power of attraction.

[robvalue]

I certainly find the "peaceful moderate" the most baffling. They propagate the myth that their holy book is the word of God, yet condemn people for actually following most of what it says.

However, this is just cognitive dissidence which we've all come to know well. Either their internal moral compass or the society they live in is having enough of an effect on them to dilute their beliefs. The only thing I have against modrerates is that they lend credibility to the myth that their book is divinely inspired, and that "faith" is a good thing. And sadly even moderates of religions can cling on to certain aspects of their religion which happen to suit their personal bigotry. This is going to vary a lot though.

Moderates seem to act more or less like atheists, they just like to think they are following the morality of their book. I'll take people actually behaving peacefully and rationally any way I can, whatever reasons they have for doing so, or however ridiculous their rationalizations may be.

[Foxaèr]

Atheism is not an alternative for most folks because it's too undefined and individualistic.

If you want a REAL solution, look to the humanist movement. 

Atheism is not too undefined.  It's merely the lack of belief in a deity.  It is not individualistic either, for community can be appreciated in reference to atheism.

Atheists, after all, are quite humanistic in general.  

[mralstoner]

Atheism is not too undefined.  It's merely the lack of belief in a deity.  It is not individualistic either, for community can be appreciated in reference to atheism.

Atheists, after all, are quite humanistic in general.

Here's the problem: human nature is groupish i.e. we're "designed" to live in groups or tribes where there are set norms that we are expected to adhere to; but human nature is also quite malleable i.e. which lifestyle or culture should humanism advocate?

The humanist usually shrugs and say: meh, do what you like, you're free now. So, humanism boils down to radical individualism, and radical diversity, so long as you don't harm anyone.

But for many people, this freedom is too disorienting, chaotic, and lacks the social cohesion to create community with any depth. Professor Jonathan Haidt calls this "anomie". Anomie kills community. 

That's the challenge for humanism: creating order out of chaos.

[Foxaèr]

But for many people, this freedom is too disorienting, chaotic, and lacks the social cohesion to create community with any depth. 

If someone finds that freedom is disorienting or chaotic, then that someone is fucking retarded.  

[mralstoner]

If someone finds that freedom is disorienting or chaotic, then that someone is fucking retarded.

It's not "someone", it's social science studies.

People don't want their freedom crushed in a tyrannical cult, but neither do they want the other extreme of chaos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_...y_Delights

This is why Christians and Muslims favourite argument against humanism is that it promotes nihilism, mindless hedonism, Nietzschean madness, existential angst, etc.

That's the challenge for humanism.

“Societies that exclude the exoskeleton of religion should reflect carefully to what will happen to them over several generations. We don’t really know, because the first atheistic societies have only emerged in Europe in the last few decades. They are the least efficient societies ever known at turning resources (of which they have a lot) into offspring (of which they have few).” 

― Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion

“Groups create supernatural beings not to explain the universe but to order their societies.” 

― Jonathan Haidt, 

[Dystopia]

I certainly find the "peaceful moderate" the most baffling. They propagate the myth that their holy book is the word of God, yet condemn people for actually following most of what it says.

I never understood how some modern atheists behave - First you complain that terrorism is bad and religion causes harm, then you complain that they are not following it enough to be true believers. I have news for you, most believers work, have children and hobbies and therefore don't have time to spend their lives reading their religion's book, papers and going to church all the time. That's why there are priests, Imams and people like Rabbis who explain who precepts and doctrines work, the same way we have lawyers to explain us how laws work

If someone finds that freedom is disorienting or chaotic, then that someone is fucking retarded.

I think what the other user was saying is that human beings are known for being irrational and dogmatic. The fact we don't believe in god makes us rational in one aspect, but it's no guarantee that we will be rational towards everything. Religion is good at giving people a sense of community, belonging and it's even an opportunity to meet new people, friends, wives, husbands, and makes you feel like a part of a group for a higher purpose.

Because humans are dogmatic, when you leave religion you will inevitably create dogmas for yourself despite not wanting to do it. Everyone is dogmatic, no one is perfect. The fact you leave religion doesn't mean you magically became rational towards everything. What @Stoner was saying is that for atheists to leave religious communities is complicated because you are leaving a group that you most likely enjoy belonging to and since you don't follow religious dogmas you are likely to replace it with your personal views which like everyone else's will be biased.

Since atheism is not cohesive excluding movements in the UK and USA like secularist alliances and foundations you become part of nothing and this leaves some people without a way to replace their former goals about religion with something similar to satisfy their brain and emotional needs (i.e. Pursuing a higher purpose) - Atheists are prone to delusion as anyone else and as such we have a tendency to create dogmas, prejudices and patterns.

I think the only group that resembles religion and does a similar job are political parties, but since those require much commitment and not everyone likes politics, they're useless.

[robvalue]

You missed out the part where I said moderates are preferable regardless of their reasons.

[Dystopia]

You missed out the part where I said moderates are preferable regardless of their reasons.

It doesn't stop me thinking their thought process is stupid.

care to explain why? also do you know that non abrahamic religions work drastically different than Islam and Christianity right?