Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Eh, what is this crap? Muhammad, world's most evil man? So they are trying to argue that Muhammad was more evil than Adolf Hitler, with that clearly rhetorical question, or something? Muhammad may have been evil, but nowhere near the world's most evil.
He did, however, inspire some very nasty people, like Aurangzeb for example. But, equally, you can also say he inspired some much nicer people like Mansa Musa. People interpret Muhammad and the Quran how they want to interpret them, and will be biased.
(February 21, 2016 at 1:16 pm)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: Eh, what is this crap? Muhammad, world's most evil man? So they are trying to argue that Muhammad was more evil than Adolf Hitler, with that clearly rhetorical question, or something? Muhammad may have been evil, but nowhere near the world's most evil.
He did, however, inspire some very nasty people, like Aurangzeb for example. But, equally, you can also say he inspired some much nicer people like Mansa Musa. People interpret Muhammad and the Quran how they want to interpret them, and will be biased.
Um no see this is the part of the left I don't like. The empathy is there, but it still remains that the non violent left of any religion is still using the same books that the violent right is. I think while you are not wrong, I think we should be pointing out that the religious justifications for either compassion or cruelty are not coming out of the books themselves, but our own evolution, the books are merely excuses to do either.
(February 21, 2016 at 1:16 pm)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: Eh, what is this crap? Muhammad, world's most evil man? So they are trying to argue that Muhammad was more evil than Adolf Hitler, with that clearly rhetorical question, or something? Muhammad may have been evil, but nowhere near the world's most evil.
He did, however, inspire some very nasty people, like Aurangzeb for example. But, equally, you can also say he inspired some much nicer people like Mansa Musa. People interpret Muhammad and the Quran how they want to interpret them, and will be biased.
Um no see this is the part of the left I don't like. The empathy is there, but it still remains that the non violent left of any religion is still using the same books that the violent right is. I think while you are not wrong, I think we should be pointing out that the religious justifications for either compassion or cruelty are not coming out of the books themselves, but our own evolution, the books are merely excuses to do either.
I think I understand what you're saying: People are often better than the deities they worship. That's why people are tolerant. I understand people will be more violent if they looked at their religious texts without ignoring the inconvenient parts. But as there's no objective interpretation, aren't all ways of reading the text equally valid?
(February 21, 2016 at 1:32 pm)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote:
(February 21, 2016 at 1:20 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Um no see this is the part of the left I don't like. The empathy is there, but it still remains that the non violent left of any religion is still using the same books that the violent right is. I think while you are not wrong, I think we should be pointing out that the religious justifications for either compassion or cruelty are not coming out of the books themselves, but our own evolution, the books are merely excuses to do either.
I think I understand what you're saying: People are often better than the deities they worship. That's why people are tolerant. I understand people will be more violent if they looked at their religious texts without ignoring the inconvenient parts. But as there's no objective interpretation, aren't all ways of reading the text equally valid?
BINGO, religion, and even the more earthy polytheism and "atheist philosophies" they like to call them as a dodge, all religions are are artificial gap answers, and while they produce social order, they are all still gap answers. Our real source of compassion and our desire to harm others when we perceive a threat, stems from our evolutionary social order and fight or flight.
Civility in the west isn't a result of religion, civility in the west is because our natural empathy has allowed us to ignore the more barbaric parts of our evolution in terms of the gap answers humans wrote into holy books to make excuses to do those things. In layperson's terms, we've learned to cherry pick and ignore the more violent tribal parts of holy books.
February 24, 2016 at 4:21 pm (This post was last modified: February 24, 2016 at 4:22 pm by ReptilianPeon.)
(February 24, 2016 at 3:59 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote:
(February 21, 2016 at 1:16 pm)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: much nicer people like Mansa Musa.
Gotta love good auld Mansa, he's great for a tech trade.
It's like I said. He's a nice person. Though he did manage to crash the economies of several cities, with his immense wealth and generosity (to this day he is still seen as the richest human to have ever lived).
![[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-d-3rfdI7nG0%2FTerwtFyFXoI%2FAAAAAAAACak%2F7kFSmHeVrng%2Fs320%2FBumper%2BSticker%2B-%2BAsheville%2B-%2BPraise%2BDog3.JPG)
