Why do Atheists defend Islam?

[SofaKingHigh]

Nice blanket statements you have there. I guess it's pointless to try and burst your bubble on clitoris mutliation. It's a cultural problem and not in any way associated with Islam. It happens outside Islam too and if it does happen with Islam, it does only happen in a minority of islamic regions. It's not the rule.

The stoning part doesn't deserve any comment, since again, it only happens in the minority of minorites and isn't the rule. If you imply it's in their book, yes, but it's in all the books.

The drawing part also only evokes violence with a very small minority. It is shunned by many, that's true, but it's not only about Muhammad, but about all humans. They are discouraged from drawing images of humans in general. But to understand that, it would require an informed opinion and somehow I doubt I'm dealing with that. Last, you might want to look at christian outrages, such as over the Piss Christ or The Last Temptation of Christ to get that it's not confined to Islam.

All in all, half assed hatred doesn't cut it. If you despise something, at least get your facts straight. Otherwise hardly anyone outside of the usual suspects will take you seriously.

Stoning rape victims is law in these Islamic majority nations. I don't see it happening in 3rd and 2nd world nations run by Christians.
Yeah, 90% of women in Egypt having their clit mutilated, totally nothing to do with Islam and only a small minority. 
Did I mention violence about the prophet Muhammad? Nope. I mentioned how many Muslims want to put you in prison for drawing Muhammad. The most I see Christians do is social media outrage and not much more. 

Did the Christians kill anybody over the movie The Life Of Brian? No. Did the Muslims kill anybody over the movie The Innocence Of Muslims? Why yes, yes they did. 

Again, saying "only a minority of Muslims" is irrelevant. 1% of Muslims is still 15,000,000 people. There's enough Muslims that a minority still makes for a very large problem.

Nobody was killed, but points of view went absolutely fucking mental.

[abaris]

Not a retardent? Ok, it galvanized Middle Eastern political power for the first two centuries (also, and this had nothing to do with Islam, the ME benefited from centuries of Byzantine culture). Here's how that worked: Non-Muslims are your enemies, take them all over the world and give them either Islam or the sword if they reject it - that's the Koran for you! Their influence began to expand, they rode into Israel, and the Pope got a bee in his bonnet over that. Then rejection of Western ways, directed by Muslim fundamentalist teachers. Still not a retardent?

Simplistic down to the joke level. The Byzantine empire wasn't the first to bring culture to that region. There were much older cultures to build upon. Also, the muslim leaders and scholars built upon the old knowledge, actually advancing science and technology, whereas it stagnated in Europe. And that's putting it mildly.

Last, as I said before. Compare the treatment of jews and/or christians under islamic rule of the time with the treatment of jews in christian Europe. Compare it also to the first Crusade, where the christian fighters went out of their way to kill off most jewish communities in Germany, while passing through on their way south. And endeavor which culminated in the wholesale slaughter of the population of Jerusalem in 1099.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Not a retardent? Ok, it galvanized Middle Eastern political power for the first two centuries (also, and this had nothing to do with Islam, the ME benefited from centuries of Byzantine culture). Here's how that worked: Non-Muslims are your enemies, take them all over the world and give them either Islam or the sword if they reject it - that's the Koran for you! Their influence began to expand, they rode into Israel, and the Pope got a bee in his bonnet over that. Then rejection of Western ways, directed by Muslim fundamentalist teachers. Still not a retardent?

Simplistic down to the joke level. The Byzantine empire wasn't the first to bring culture to that region. There were much older cultures to build upon. Also, the muslim leaders and scholars built upon the old knowledge, actually advancing science and technology, whereas it stagnated in Europe. And that's putting it mildly.

Last, as I said before. Compare the treatment of jews and/or christians under islamic rule of the time with the treatment of jews in christian Europe. Compare it also to the first Crusade, where the christian fighters went out of their way to kill off most jewish communities in Germany, while passing through on their way south. And endeavor which culminated in the wholesale slaughter of the population of Jerusalem in 1099.

I do try and keep a sense of humor. Still, I would like to how how is this relevant to my point that Islam wasn't quite good for the Arab culture which it was born to, and which continues to influence most Muslims today, wherever they are in the world? Yes, the Muslims inherited a rich culture, and they destroyed it. Not immediately, and it's a fact that they continued to build long after Europe collapsed into the shitter, and also that they would have been centuries ahead of Europe today had they kept it up. The destruction of the central library in Alexandria was a huge loss to both Xtians and Muslims, ok, and European Xtians had no less a part in destroying knowledge for future generations, and possibly more so. However, here's another fact: Muslim culture continued to degenerate after al Ghazali's "reforms" - then Middle East culture continually slid while Europe eventually recovered. So, if this doesn't happen when you go fundamental with one holy book more so than some others (and there's been nothing but increasingly, and insanely violent gabble from Islamic fundamentalism since it returned in the 1980s), then how do you explain it?

Oh, right - Muslims are more violent because of America, that's it! Not like nobody ever riled Muslim countries before we did, of course not - the US invented imperialism (and I still haven't got a ride on that secret time machine which goes back to a time predating the Sumerians, DAMN)! You know most people, everywhere, have some people they're angry at, whom they blame all their problems on.

[Ben Davis]

Not a retardent?

Not necessarily a retardant. The point I've been making (quite clearly, I thought) is that there have been times (e.g. the Golden Age) when Islam has been an accelerant of progress, other times (e.g. now) when it's been a retardant. Clearly Islam is a contributor to both situations but not the sole driver. I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the other factors might be. All I seem to be getting in return is 'Nope, it's just that all Islam is bad!'.

Here's how that worked: Non-Muslims are your enemies, take them all over the world and give them either Islam or the sword if they reject it - that's the Koran for you!

But that's not all the Qur'an says. Like most other holy books, it contains good points, too. That's why I say that it's the archetypal interpretations which are key: are the leadership instructing "The Qur'an tells us to love everyone!" or are they saying "The Qur'an tells us to kill everyone!" and do the majority of adherents agree with the leadership? We have historic examples of the social, political and cultural impacts of both sides of that scenario.

Am I making sense to you?

[GrandizerII]

Not a retardent?

Not necessarily a retardant. The point I've been making (quite clearly, I thought) is that there have been times (e.g. the Golden Age) when Islam has been an accelerant of progress, other times (e.g. now) when it's been a retardant. Clearly Islam is a contributor to both situations but not the sole driver. I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the other factors might be. All I seem to be getting in return is 'Nope, it's just that all Islam is bad!'.

Here's how that worked: Non-Muslims are your enemies, take them all over the world and give them either Islam or the sword if they reject it - that's the Koran for you!

But that's not all the Qur'an says. Like most other holy books, it contains good points, too. That's why I say that it's the archetypal interpretations which are key: are the leadership instructing "The Qur'an tells us to love everyone!" or are they saying "The Qur'an tells us to kill everyone!" and do the majority of adherents agree with the leadership? We have historic examples of the social, political and cultural impacts of both sides of that scenario.

Am I making sense to you?

And in fact, the Qur'an doesn't even say it the way God of Mr. Hanky said it. If anything, what it literally advocates is no different from what many Christians advocate: aggress against those who aggress against you.

[Mister Agenda]

355 mass shootings so far this year. 0.56% of them carried out by Muslims, who are 0.9% of the populations. I think you're engaging in poor risk assessment.

I'd like to see those numbers in Muslim countries.

---

It's hilarious, when one speaks out against Islam and the danger that said ideology has, the first people that tend to rush in to defend them are Atheists. Not all Atheists are like this, many of them aren't, especially the most public ones like Dawkins and Harris, but there's no denying that many Atheists are.

It's kind of troubling for these same Atheists who will sit there and bash on say Christians that don't wanna make a cake or don't like abortion, but at the same time defend a religion that stones women to death for the crime of being raped. They defend that in the name of multi-culturalism and cultural relativism, but don't apply those same standards to the culture of the religious majority in their own country, which is a big double standard.

Either all culture based on religion is bad (which is my position,) or there is no primitive and civilized culture and all cultures must be respected (which is the shittiest position to take.) Anything else is just applying standards to one and not the other.

You'd like to see those numbers in Muslim countries because the numbers in the country you live in are insufficiently alarming?

It's okay and appropriate to criticize Christians for not being willing to bake a cake: the Christians who won't bake the cake and the Christians that support them not baking the cake. It's not okay to say that Christians are unwilling to bake cakes for gay weddings, because there are plenty that will. It's not okay to say Christians are homophobic, because many aren't. It's called being able to make distinctions. If you are consistent, then pointing out those distinctions means I'm defending the religion. You'd be a consistent idiot, but consistent.

There's a difference between defending Islam and defending innocent Muslims. You're not hearing anyone say Islamism is a good thing or adulteresses should be allowed to be stoned 'because it's their custom'. That atheists are defending the practice of stoning women being raped is an assertion. Have you got anything to back it up? Any atheists who think refugees ought to be allowed to stone anyone? This is sheer fantasy on your part.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Not a retardent?

Not necessarily a retardant. The point I've been making (quite clearly, I thought) is that there have been times (e.g. the Golden Age) when Islam has been an accelerant of progress, other times (e.g. now) when it's been a retardant. Clearly Islam is a contributor to both situations but not the sole driver. I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the other factors might be. All I seem to be getting in return is 'Nope, it's just that all Islam is bad!'.

Here's how that worked: Non-Muslims are your enemies, take them all over the world and give them either Islam or the sword if they reject it - that's the Koran for you!

But that's not all the Qur'an says. Like most other holy books, it contains good points, too. That's why I say that it's the archetypal interpretations which are key: are the leadership instructing "The Qur'an tells us to love everyone!" or are they saying "The Qur'an tells us to kill everyone!" and do the majority of adherents agree with the leadership? We have historic examples of the social, political and cultural impacts of both sides of that scenario.

Am I making sense to you?

My position is open, so let's talk about other factors behind ME woes besides Islam. But first, let's deal with why Islam isn't a major, if not the majority factor, because all I see for other reasons are because you or others say so. I've already dealt with pre-existing cultural traits which even the 7th Century Arab contemporaries would have had a problem with, and let's not lose site of the fact that however forward-thinking and intellectual the Arabs (and the Byzantines, can't lie here), social progress only applied to the high-born, while slavery was how the city got things done. Some women of high birth were known to teach men and women in co-ed classrooms in Alexandria, but they probably weren't among the Muslims who lived there. I'm pretty sure this was the Golden Age you refer to, so how in particular do you see Islam as "an accelerant to progress" then, or at any time? How do we know Islam had anything to do with any social or intellectual progress for those who happened to be Muslim? Where does the Koran encourage forward-thinking intellectualism and social egalitarianism (well, sorry, guess the latter is a non-starter)? If such holy words are still in that book, then why do you think they have been subsequently ignored to this day (or at least hat's how it appears for hundreds of millions of people who live under the terror of Sharia law, women living as chattel, and death threats to any who dare speak their minds)? How is Islam not responsible in a significant, and uniquely significant way for these problems, and in any way an inspiration for scientific and social progress?

---

Not necessarily a retardant. The point I've been making (quite clearly, I thought) is that there have been times (e.g. the Golden Age) when Islam has been an accelerant of progress, other times (e.g. now) when it's been a retardant. Clearly Islam is a contributor to both situations but not the sole driver. I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the other factors might be. All I seem to be getting in return is 'Nope, it's just that all Islam is bad!'.


But that's not all the Qur'an says. Like most other holy books, it contains good points, too. That's why I say that it's the archetypal interpretations which are key: are the leadership instructing "The Qur'an tells us to love everyone!" or are they saying "The Qur'an tells us to kill everyone!" and do the majority of adherents agree with the leadership? We have historic examples of the social, political and cultural impacts of both sides of that scenario.

Am I making sense to you?

And in fact, the Qur'an doesn't even say it the way God of Mr. Hanky said it. If anything, what it literally advocates is no different from what many Christians advocate: aggress against those who aggress against you.

Ok, my bad for thinking what the xtains taught me in their school was even a small part history, but my understanding has been that "holy wars", which they actually called their efforts to bring Islam to the world were inspired of Muck Ham Mad. This is not true? If it doesn't tell them to "kill the infidel", then who did? It this is what they teach, and it wasn't drawn from the Koran, then it must have been written by some recognized Muslim teacher while ISIS is attracting people who are not illiterate. I hate the thought that I myself will become behooved to read that shit, having no interest in it while life is so short.

[abaris]

I'm pretty sure this was the Golden Age you refer to, so how in particular do you see Islam as "an accelerant to progress" then, or at any time? How do we know Islam had anything to do with any social or intellectual progress for those who happened to be Muslim? Where does the Koran encourage forward-thinking intellectualism and social egalitarianism (well, sorry, guess the latter is a non-starter)?

Wrong question. Islam did neither encourage nor prevent progress. For one simple reason. It never had an ultimate religious authority, but many different people interpreting and preaching their understanding of the Quran. So it always was up to the leaders how liberal or backwards their regions and territories were. And, as has been said, the Quran is as ambiguous as the bible and open to interpretation.

Compare that to Western society, where the pope and foremost the monasteries were the only ones preserving knowledge, but never building on it. The pope and through him the church, were the ultimate authority in all spiritual and educational matters.

I say Western, because Byzanz didn't fall under that rule. And accordingly it was also more advanced than the West.

The decline of liberal Islam is due to many factors over the centuries. The power struggle within the Islamic world, which led to the rise of less educated nomadic people to power and probably most importantly, the Osmanic rulers taking over the largest part of the Middle East. Which prevented independent development.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I'm pretty sure this was the Golden Age you refer to, so how in particular do you see Islam as "an accelerant to progress" then, or at any time? How do we know Islam had anything to do with any social or intellectual progress for those who happened to be Muslim? Where does the Koran encourage forward-thinking intellectualism and social egalitarianism (well, sorry, guess the latter is a non-starter)?

Wrong question. Islam did neither encourage nor prevent progress. For one simple reason. It never had an ultimate religious authority, but many different people interpreting and preaching their understanding of the Quran. So it always was up to the leaders how liberal or backwards their regions and territories were. And, as has been said, the Quran is as ambiguous as the bible and open to interpretation.

Compare that to Western society, where the pope and foremost the monasteries were the only ones preserving knowledge, but never building on it. The pope and through him the church, were the ultimate authority in all spiritual and educational matters.

I say Western, because Byzanz didn't fall under that rule. And accordingly it was also more advanced than the West.

The decline of liberal Islam is due to many factors over the centuries. The power struggle within the Islamic world, which led to the rise of less educated nomadic people to power and probably most importantly, the Osmanic rulers taking over the largest part of the Middle East. Which prevented independent development.

Has Islam ever been known to teach family love before purity, mutual respect over bigamy and misogyny, and peace over war? I think of these when somebody says "social progress". Not all religions are quite the same on these, while most of them encourage charity to poor children, even while they teach the opposite political position regarding their care.

[abaris]

Not all religions are quite the same on these, while most of them encourage charity to poor children, even while they teach the opposite political position regarding their care.

You might want to read up on the Quran at some time. It is virtually on the same lines as the bible. As has been said, you find all the good and bad the other religions have too. Such as the above. And at the time in question, it was much more tolerant than Western christianity. It isn't a handbook on how to wage war, as it isn't handbook on love peace and happiness.

So, yes, going by their scriptures, all religions are indeed the same.