Originally posted by ivanhoeI was trying to point out that people will use whatever ideology is around them to fuel their desires. There are plenty of groups around the world getting together ranting about how they have a moral/religious/historical right & need to attack & wipe out another section of the world, be that section Jews, Arabs, blacks, westerners, Chechens, Congoists (???)...
This thread, Black Lung, is obviously NOT about the majority of Muslims, but about those Muslims that abuse the Islam religion in order to start a so called Jihad against the western World and they mean business. Therefore all these references to the Bible and Christians are not that relevant. These references are all meant to try and rationalise away the real threat posed by these Islamist Muslims.
.
The Islamic fundamentalist 'threat' happens to have caught the west's eye because it is the major one that sees the west as it's enemy - this doesn't mean that they are the only threat to the west, or the only group who are 'serious' about religious/racial/political war aganst someone else. Therefore I would say that any reference to such other groups or sections of religious or political ideology that support such actions are very relevent as they put this Islamic group in perspective.
Originally posted by Black LungSunni Muslims (who are the majority in most parts of the world) don't have a clergy, in the same sense that, eg Methodists don't - it's not like there's some Muslim Pope in Mecca who has been ordained by God and can order his followers to go on a jihad. Of course you get preachers who can be extremely influential, but their 'official' status is more of wise men than spiritual leaders.
An official Jihad can only be called by top officials in Saudi Arabia
Originally posted by belgianfreakThe point I was trying to make with my posts is that there certainly are passages in the holy books of Islam, Christianity and Judaism which preach hatred and violence. So people saying such and such is a peaceful religion are just plain wrong. However, it is possible to ignore certain unsavoury or illogical parts of these books and practice something peaceful. It's just a case of whether this is actually done or not. (e.g. 2-400 years ago many christians followed the part of the bible which says 'do not suffer a witch to live'. There are many self-proclaimed witches around nowadays who manage not to get themselves burned/hanged, etc).
I was trying to point out that people will use whatever ideology is around them to fuel their desires. There are plenty of groups around the world getting together ranting about how they have a moral/religious/historical right & need to attack & wipe out another section of the world, be that section Jews, Arabs, blacks, westerners, Chechens, Congoists ( ...[text shortened]... logy that support such actions are very relevent as they put this Islamic group in perspective.
Originally posted by VargYes, I think we are in fact agreeing with each other here, that it is not the ideology that causes the actions rather the way people interpret the ideology.
The point I was trying to make with my posts is that there certainly are passages in the holy books of Islam, Christianity and Judaism which preach hatred and violence. So people saying such and such is a peaceful religion are just plain wrong. However, it is possible to ignore certain unsavoury or illogical parts of these books and practice something peaceful. ...[text shortened]... ny self-proclaimed witches around nowadays who manage not to get themselves burned/hanged, etc).
1 edit
Originally posted by belgianfreakThe ideology of Freethought was all right for me until they decided that killing human beings is a way of reducing human suffering and "solving" unpleasant problems. Freethought has thus become an ideology that shows much resemblance with other ideologies wich claim that killing others will solve problems.
Yes, I think we are in fact agreeing with each other here, that it is not the ideology that causes the actions rather the way people interpret the ideology.
Originally posted by ivanhoeAlthough Pyrrho and I (and others) have mentioned this many times before, you still don't seem to understand that Freethought, as an ideology, isn't committed to any particular stance on euthanasia, abortion, capital punishment, etc. As an ideology, all Freethought is committed to is the rejection of dogmatism and religious authority. There is nothing contradictory in a Freethinker arguing that euthanasia, abortion, and capital punishment are morally wrong. There is nothing contradictory in a Freethinker basing such an argument on their religious beliefs, if those beliefs are not based on mere religious dogmatism. The original Freethinkers such as Voltaire and Rousseau were Deists, after all, but they were not Theists. They rejected the claim that God revealed Himself through revelation, and instead looked to reason to uncover God's plan. There would have been nothing contradictory in either of these thinkers arguing that the life of human organisms is sacred, as long as their arguments were not based on religious dogmatism but rather on the deliverances of their own reasoning. You seriously fail to understand the basic tenet of Freethought, and this leads you to make ridiculous claims like the one in your post above. Some Freethinkers may advocate the killing of certain human organisms (the brain-dead or the pre-conscious, for instance), but other Freethinkers may not. Please try to grasp this very simple point.
The ideology of Freethought was all right for me until they decided that killing human beings is a way of reducing human suffering and "solving" unpleasant problems. Freethought has thus become an ideology that shows much resemblance with other ideologies wich claim that killing others will solve problems.
Originally posted by bbarr"There is nothing contradictory in a Freethinker arguing that euthanasia, abortion, etc............... are morally wrong."
Although Pyrrho and I (and others) have mentioned this many times before, you still don't seem to understand that Freethought, as an ideology, isn't committed to any particular stance on euthanasia, abortion, capital punishment, etc. As an ideology, all Freethought is committed to is the rejection of dogmatism and religious authority. There is nothing cont ...[text shortened]... ous, for instance), but other Freethinkers may not. Please try to grasp this very simple point.
Sure it is not contradictory, but Bbarr WHERE ARE THEY ?
Please try to grasp this very simple point.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhere have you looked, Ivanhoe? This took me 5 seconds to find:
"There is nothing contradictory in a Freethinker arguing that euthanasia, abortion, etc............... are morally wrong."
Sure it is not contradictory, but Bbarr WHERE ARE THEY ?
Please try to grasp this very simple point.
www.godlessprolifers.org
Look at the member list, there are hundreds of folk there who categorize themselves as either atheist or agnostic and yet are opposed to abortion. I figured you'd have found this site and the other social conservative freethinker sites already, given how internet-savvy you seem to be. I figured that since each thread you begin starts with a link to some webpage, you would have fairly refined internet searching skills. Yet, I found the site above in almost no time at all. All I did was type "Pro-Life and Freethinkers" into Google, and a link to the site showed up on the first page Google returned. So strange you didn't find this. On the other hand, maybe it isn't strange at all. Perhaps you never looked.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarr1. On what words did you google to find this site, I wanna know more about this ?
Where have you looked, Ivanhoe? This took me 5 seconds to find:
www.godlessprolifers.org
Look at the member list, there are hundreds of folk there who categorize themselves as either atheist or agnostic and yet are opposed to abortion.
2. Are there also non-religious sites/people that not only oppose abortion but also oppose euthanasia ?
3. The person that made the site you mentioned does not present himself as a "Freethinker" as far as I can see.
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
Taken from the above site:
I'm James Matthew (Matt) Wallace, aka The Compleat Heretic. I'm both a Secular Humanist atheist and a pro-life advocate. All too often, I fear that I'm the only nonreligious person who opposes the genocide of abortion used as a birth control substitute. Accordingly, I have created this web site as a virtual rallying point and clearinghouse for all atheists, agnostics, and other "godless" people who call themselves "pro-life."
Though I am a Republican and a conservative (both social and economic), I intend for this site to be nonpartisan and nondiscriminatory. AAPL is for all nontheists regardless of political affiliation, political alignment, age, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, etc.; the more diversity, all the better. Even so, there are three requirements (explained in further detail on the Membership Form page) for AAPL membership; one must:
1) be an avowed atheist, agnostic, or other nontheist
2) oppose abortion and desire its abolition (with or without exceptions)
3) support nonviolence as the sole legitimate means of achieving the goals of the
pro-life movement
Originally posted by ivanhoeso, do you believe that people should be forced to live regardless of how much pain they are in, whether it be physical, mental or emotional?
The ideology of Freethought was all right for me until they decided that killing human beings is a way of reducing human suffering and "solving" unpleasant problems. Freethought has thus become an ideology that shows much resemblance with other ideologies wich claim that killing others will solve problems.
1 edit
Originally posted by belgianfreakYou're playing the "compassion" card again, thus stating that if I do not agree with you then I'm a monster.
so, do you believe that people should be forced to live regardless of how much pain they are in, whether it be physical, mental or emotional?
I'm advocating the relieve of pain and suffering by using the modern releaving pain methods and taking care of people by being there for them and not abandoning them. We should take care for those who suffer and we should releave their pain as much as possible.
I do NOT advocate killing in order to solve human problems. One big problem in this regard is that "modern" people do not know how to give meaning to suffering anymore. Especially giving meaning to suffering at the end of a human life has become impossible for them.
In the case of free abortion playing the "compassion" card is often not possible in the case of a healthy child. The advocates of the Culture of Death have to find other reasons to justify killing. Unless of course the child in question is a disabled child, them they can play the "compassion" card again and picture the opponents of killing unborn children as monsters.
Talking about turning the world upside down.
Originally posted by bbarr
Where have you looked, Ivanhoe? This took me 5 seconds to find:
www.godlessprolifers.org
Look at the member list, there are hundreds of folk there who categorize themselves as either atheist or agnostic and yet are opposed to abortion. I figured you'd have found this site and the other social conservative freethinker sites already, given how internet- ...[text shortened]... idn't find this. On the other hand, maybe it isn't strange at all. Perhaps you never looked.
I'm so sorry, master Bbarr. It will never happen again .....
.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat about suicide?
You're playing the "compassion" card again, thus stating that if I do not agree with you then I'm a monster.
I'm advocating the relieve of pain and suffering by using the modern releaving pain methods and taking care of people by being there for them and not abandoning them. We should take care for those who suffer and we should releave their pain as ...[text shortened]... of killing unborn children as monsters.
Talking about turning the world upside down.
I know it's illegal (In the UK and US, at least), but if someone wants to end their life, for whatever reason - should we stop them?