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

[robvalue]

Explain why what? Why you quote mined me?

[Dystopia]

Well for starters you said moderates act like atheists - What's that even supposed to mean considering that atheists don't act a certain way? And where's your theological justification? What research have you done? For which religion? How many scholars have you read to conclude moderates are following wrong? Do you know that most believers don't even have time or patience to read the entire book? Seriously, most theists live regular lives and are not as devout as we make it look here in AF.

[robvalue]

OK well seeing as you aren't admitting to quote mining me, I don't feel like discussing it.

I said I find them baffling but I'll gladly accept them.

You removed the second bit then lectured me that I should accept them.

[Dystopia]

Because your second bit doesn't explain anything Rob, b sides that "This is true because I think it is" - You need to provide justification when your doing such a generalization, otherwise by saying "faith is stupid and moderates are doing it wrong" is just as bad as preachers telling you to "have faith because I say so". Do you think it's unreasonable to ask for an explanation? Don't you think people should question even what they hold as the truth?

[robvalue]

Really. I think we're done.

[Dystopia]

So you're going to be dishonest, ignore my simple request and pretend this didn't happen? Don't you think it's challenging to get your views questioned? I'm asking a simple question. Simple questions can get simple answers.

[Ben Davis]

---

People often say how much they hate terrorism and are always wanting believers to condemn terrorism. Many amoungst us Kathir claim to support "peaceful believers", reformers even, such as those at the Quilliam Foundation, and I'm guilty of this myself, but then say the killers are the only ones who are following the Quran properly. Do you think this is 'pulling any (metaphorical) rugs' from under the feet of anybody? This is an accusation I've heard.

I would say given that, yes, ISIS are following the Quran properly this is an excellent advert for Atheism. Sure, the majority of those dying in the fight against ISIS are Muhammadans, but they are Kurds (secular) and Shia, in particular those from Mr. Assad's Alawite branch (who make up about 10% of Syria's population) and any supported by those evil Iranians who may not be so evil after all. Shias and Kurds have to fight ISIS else they will die as they wouldn't survive in the Caliphate. Whereas, I'm sure many Sunnis, in particular in Iraq and Syria where Sunnis have been fighting Shia for years now, in the area quietly sympathize with ISIS even if they don't overtly support them.

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.

---

Hi, I don't think we've had a discussion before so pleased to meet you.

You used the term 'following... properly' but the I think the term 'following a valid/justified interpretation' is more appropriate. As we're all aware, there can be many different, sometimes competing interpretations of any religion so there's value in asking believers to justify their beliefs and explain the parts of doctrine that support them. That gives insight as to how they validate their actions and makes it more difficult for followers of the same religion, who have different interpretations, to avoid group-responsibility for actions of fellow believers.

So I don't see it as 'pulling the rug...' either, more as showing the followers of a specific religion that they need to accept responsibility for the actions of some of its adherents when a 'valid' interpretation is claimed. When believers cry 'No True Scotsman!' or 'You're pulling the rug...', I see it as an attempt to avoid the responsibility they have to address the actions of their group or at very least, to accept that the interpretation is valid in terms of the overall religious doctrine. As we've seen, sometimes the response is to try to eradicate believers with alternative interpretations.

Looking specifically at Islam, here in the UK, muslims tend to follow a more 'enlightened', moderate, peaceful set of interpretations and the major Islamic bodies (The Islamic Council UK, the Muslim Council of Britain), who represent the majority of UK muslims, take a public stand against violent, extremist, fundamentalist or jihadist interpretations. However many of the fundamental views of muslims are shared across all interpretations and by making those shared views explicit, by demanding that believers validate/justify their interpretations, those outside Islam are able to illustrate why further change is necessary for the good of all.

Of course, I'm assuming that the religion is capable of such change, and justifiably so. Think of the ways Christianity has changed. After all, the effects of a religion rely completely on the actions of its believers and its fundamentals are no more that the accepted doctrines. Even Islam has been amended over time, the hadiths are a demonstration that Islam can change and the modern acceptance of what Salman Rushdie called 'the Satanic Verses' as dismissable sections of the Qur'an show that even the core text can have entire sections removed from fundamental doctrine. There will likely be more violence as this change occurs, even Christianity didn't change quietly, and that change will have to root from believers showing that they don't want to live the way that certain interpretations of Islam require. It seems that the best we can do is support the 'peaceful' believers in order to reduce the amount of harm that comes from Islams eventual transition.

[robvalue]

It's a good point. How can interpretations "change"? It's the same frigging book, and now suddenly you're gonna start doing something totally different to what you were doing a minute ago. You have no way of verifying the previous way was the right way, nor the new way. I guess some new scrap could turn up or something, or they find stuff in other ways that "may change the meaning" of what it says. Bullshit. The assumption it's divinely inspired is the stupidest thing I could imagine. If it was divinely inspired people wouldn't need to kill each other over how to read it.

So how do you convince people of the new interpretation when it's all arbitrary? You can hardly use a reasoned argument. I'd say the only people qualified to give the right "interpretation" are the authors, and since we have no originals of anything (I assume this is the same with the Kerrang) we've just got copies of copies. And really, for all we know they wrote these books to be stories; fiction.

So how do you do it? History seems to point towards telling people that's how they're going to do it, and killing them if they don't. Science doesn't seem to work that way. Einstein didn't need to slaughter the previous scientists to get his new theory into place. Well, I haven't heard about it if he did.

These days everyone has their own interpretation. It's just words on a page that some douche bag wrote ages ago. If you think it has all the answers to life, or even any of them, you're starting with a very fragile premise.

---

Dyst: No, I'm putting you ignore because you blatantly quote mined me, I gave you 3 opportunities to own up and you refused to. I don't need this kind of shit. I come here to enjoy myself.

If someone else asks one of those questions in a more respectful matter, I will answer it.

[Dystopia]

I asked you a simple question and you didn't answer it. If you want to refuse to answer it just shows you display the same kind of behaviour preachers do, your refuse to even acknowledge that people have the right to question your stance and ask questions about it. Whatever suits your boat. I was never hostile towards you and I didn't even say you're wrong. Putting me on ignore just because I was curious about something is extremely childish.

Also I don't consider I was disrespecful but even if I was that's irrelevant, a challenging question matters regardless of tone.

[Ben Davis]

It's a good point. How can interpretations "change"? It's the same frigging book, and now suddenly you're gonna start doing something totally different to what you were doing a minute ago.

Religious change happens all the time because, as any comparative theologist can tell you, religions are man-made and mankind is a vacillating species, indeed! Think of Christianity and all of the denominations which sprang up as believers needed less literal versions (one per believer?). Although the various churches used every means at their disposal to stop change from happening, the views of the common christian resulted in the modern, less toothy versions we see today.

You have no way of verifying the previous way was the right way, nor the new way. I guess some new scrap could turn up or something, or they find stuff in other ways that "may change the meaning" of what it says. Bullshit. The assumption it's divinely inspired is the stupidest thing I could imagine. If it was divinely inspired people wouldn't need to kill each other over how to read it.

They claim they can justify their new beliefs. That's why it's important, in my view, to ask believers to do so, and to ask why they don't accept other interpretations.

So how do you convince people of the new interpretation when it's all arbitrary? You can hardly use a reasoned argument.

People will follow a new interpretation when it fits their value-systems; it would be rare to find a pacifistic jihadist. So to have a greater chance of a successful religion, you have to be able to read the crowd and 'intelligently design' your doctrine to fit popular opinion.

I'd say the only people qualified to give the right "interpretation" are the authors, and since we have no originals of anything (I assume this is the same with the Kerrang) we've just got copies of copies. And really, for all we know they wrote these books to be stories; fiction.

That depends on what you mean by 'right interpretation'. If you mean 'original' then yes, the original authors would be the best source however if you mean 'most successfully propogatable' (most memetic?) then public opinion's definitely the way to go. In which case, everyone's qualified to interpret. That's both a boon and an indictment: a boon because we're not permanently stuck with harmful interpretations and an indictment because it highlights the lack of divine inspiration required for religion.

So how do you do it? History seems to point towards telling people that's how they're going to do it, and killing them if they don't. Science doesn't seem to work that way. Einstein didn't need to slaughter the previous scientists to get his new theory into place. Well, I haven't heard about it if he did.

Historically, violence has been the most effective inducement. It still is for non-enlightened Islam. For other religions, now o'days, social exclusion and isolation tends to be the most common tool

These days everyone has their own interpretation. It's just words on a page that some douche bag wrote ages ago. If you think it has all the answers to life, or even any of them, you're starting with a very fragile premise.

Yup. That's why I call bullshit, too.