Muslims Like Us
Comments
-
....not anti-religion btw, seen many people find solace in their chosen religion in their time of need.2
-
I don't believe anyseth plum said:
This entity that doesn't exist thing is interesting philosophically. There is a line of thought that says it exists if it is seated within people, and the existence is strengthened if enough people agree about it. It is added to by the reactive manifestations of that agreement in lifestyle, ceremony, clothing, language and the like.
Few people question the existence of 'love', yet love itself exists because of the observances of the phenomena, not because it can be scientifically proved.
I don't believe anyone claims love is an entity or supreme being. It is an emotion.seth plum said:This entity that doesn't exist thing is interesting philosophically. There is a line of thought that says it exists if it is seated within people, and the existence is strengthened if enough people agree about it. It is added to by the reactive manifestations of that agreement in lifestyle, ceremony, clothing, language and the like.
Few people question the existence of 'love', yet love itself exists because of the observances of the phenomena, not because it can be scientifically proved.
People do claim the God, by whatever name they call him, exists, influences the world and sets out rules for what people must do and more often not do to please him.
Up to that point I'm fine. It's when they tell me and other people often with a threat of violence or damnation what we can and can't do that they cross the line.
1 -
Oops.DaveMehmet said:
WHAAAT?Greenie said:When Im reading about any religion whenever the word God (or other deity) is used, I find it amusing to replace it with Tooth Fairy or Santa, it gives it about as much realism.
Its things like that which help me get through my day.0 -
All you need is love Seth. Someone should write a song about that...0
-
ImagineSaga Lout said:All you need is love Seth. Someone should write a song about that...
3 -
-
You're all doing quite well so far. Proceed4
-
Nothing to disagree with here. The oppressive nature of religions has been a very negative force, often counteracting the good that religion does.Henry Irving said:I don't believe any
seth plum said:This entity that doesn't exist thing is interesting philosophically. There is a line of thought that says it exists if it is seated within people, and the existence is strengthened if enough people agree about it. It is added to by the reactive manifestations of that agreement in lifestyle, ceremony, clothing, language and the like.
Few people question the existence of 'love', yet love itself exists because of the observances of the phenomena, not because it can be scientifically proved.
I don't believe anyone claims love is an entity or supreme being. It is an emotion.seth plum said:This entity that doesn't exist thing is interesting philosophically. There is a line of thought that says it exists if it is seated within people, and the existence is strengthened if enough people agree about it. It is added to by the reactive manifestations of that agreement in lifestyle, ceremony, clothing, language and the like.
Few people question the existence of 'love', yet love itself exists because of the observances of the phenomena, not because it can be scientifically proved.
People do claim the God, by whatever name they call him, exists, influences the world and sets out rules for what people must do and more often not do to please him.
Up to that point I'm fine. It's when they tell me and other people often with a threat of violence or damnation what we can and can't do that they cross the line.
Mind you there is a phrase that goes around that says God is love. The scientific existence of both God and love would be hard to prove.
0 -
.....and I think that this was well demonstrated (and endorsed) by some on the program last night.seth plum said:
Nothing to disagree with here. The oppressive nature of religions has been a very negative force, often counteracting the good that religion does.Henry Irving said:I don't believe any
seth plum said:This entity that doesn't exist thing is interesting philosophically. There is a line of thought that says it exists if it is seated within people, and the existence is strengthened if enough people agree about it. It is added to by the reactive manifestations of that agreement in lifestyle, ceremony, clothing, language and the like.
Few people question the existence of 'love', yet love itself exists because of the observances of the phenomena, not because it can be scientifically proved.
I don't believe anyone claims love is an entity or supreme being. It is an emotion.seth plum said:This entity that doesn't exist thing is interesting philosophically. There is a line of thought that says it exists if it is seated within people, and the existence is strengthened if enough people agree about it. It is added to by the reactive manifestations of that agreement in lifestyle, ceremony, clothing, language and the like.
Few people question the existence of 'love', yet love itself exists because of the observances of the phenomena, not because it can be scientifically proved.
People do claim the God, by whatever name they call him, exists, influences the world and sets out rules for what people must do and more often not do to please him.
Up to that point I'm fine. It's when they tell me and other people often with a threat of violence or damnation what we can and can't do that they cross the line.
I also personally believe that all religion is bunkum - but have no problem with people of faith....until it starts to adversely affect the world we live in.
In fact my view with all things in life is crack on....do whatever you want....but don't shit on others.9 -
When I saw the thread title I thought it was going to be about a Charlton Muslim following...0
- Sponsored links:
-
Thing is, Seth, we shouldn't need religion to do the good things that religion has provided.
I was brought up a Christian, attending Anglican services. I was taught many good life lessons and values. But I was in a church that effectively existed because a fat guy wanted a divorce 500 years earlier, back when disagreeing with the church got you killed. I'd much prefer to have been raised on values that weren't based on such a hypocritical system.
We were praising a God in an old, bick building that, while bearing no relation to the time period often referred to in it, was seen as bringing us closer to God. Cos it was old. Like, 100 years old. Singing 150 year old songs in it. About something that supposedly happened 2000 years earlier. I'm not sure whether the 70s carpet meant God was less likely to hear my prayers though. I think about this when I see religious clothing, from burqas to kippahs, putting pieces of cloth on your person makes an omnipotent deity happy? Eh?
We have emotional reactions to other people as a social utility, to aid reproduction and because we are brought up to believe in it from birth. I truly think the sooner we can cotton on to this stuff as a species, the more free we will be to further our own kind. That said, plenty of people who do believe in this stuff are living happier lives than me. So even if I'm right, what's the point?11 -
........all together now............i_b_b_o_r_g said:
ImagineSaga Lout said:All you need is love Seth. Someone should write a song about that...
0 -
Very good programme I thought, looking forward to part 2.0
-
All Muslims are lovely and cuddly...0
-
I suppose we're discussing morality. Which is a concept that can be free of any God or religion, either organised or informal.JiMMy 85 said:Thing is, Seth, we shouldn't need religion to do the good things that religion has provided.
I was brought up a Christian, attending Anglican services. I was taught many good life lessons and values. But I was in a church that effectively existed because a fat guy wanted a divorce 500 years earlier, back when disagreeing with the church got you killed. I'd much prefer to have been raised on values that weren't based on such a hypocritical system.
We were praising a God in an old, bick building that, while bearing no relation to the time period often referred to in it, was seen as bringing us closer to God. Cos it was old. Like, 100 years old. Singing 150 year old songs in it. About something that supposedly happened 2000 years earlier. I'm not sure whether the 70s carpet meant God was less likely to hear my prayers though. I think about this when I see religious clothing, from burqas to kippahs, putting pieces of cloth on your person makes an omnipotent deity happy? Eh?
We have emotional reactions to other people as a social utility, to aid reproduction and because we are brought up to believe in it from birth. I truly think the sooner we can cotton on to this stuff as a species, the more free we will be to further our own kind. That said, plenty of people who do believe in this stuff are living happier lives than me. So even if I'm right, what's the point?
I think that it (morality) usually becomes pertinent and tested when people have to think beyond their immediate family.
It is possible that a group, by agreeing on some kind of religious principle, accept the moral rules suggested in those principles. It may have been, or maybe is even still the case, that a set of moral precepts that one can refer to somewhere is convenient, even time saving!
It is of course demonstrably possible to be a person of high morals and not in the slightest bit religious, and for that moral structure to have come about from personal experiences.
There is a slight catch. What internal restraint can a moral person utilise if tempted to break their own code? Is it the same kind of restraint a religious person might utilise when faced with temptation themselves?
I can't say I have a decent answer to that question.0 -
Well love is an emotion that I think you could prove exists in the same way that you could prove eg fear or happiness exists.seth plum said:
Nothing to disagree with here. The oppressive nature of religions has been a very negative force, often counteracting the good that religion does.Henry Irving said:I don't believe any
seth plum said:This entity that doesn't exist thing is interesting philosophically. There is a line of thought that says it exists if it is seated within people, and the existence is strengthened if enough people agree about it. It is added to by the reactive manifestations of that agreement in lifestyle, ceremony, clothing, language and the like.
Few people question the existence of 'love', yet love itself exists because of the observances of the phenomena, not because it can be scientifically proved.
I don't believe anyone claims love is an entity or supreme being. It is an emotion.seth plum said:This entity that doesn't exist thing is interesting philosophically. There is a line of thought that says it exists if it is seated within people, and the existence is strengthened if enough people agree about it. It is added to by the reactive manifestations of that agreement in lifestyle, ceremony, clothing, language and the like.
Few people question the existence of 'love', yet love itself exists because of the observances of the phenomena, not because it can be scientifically proved.
People do claim the God, by whatever name they call him, exists, influences the world and sets out rules for what people must do and more often not do to please him.
Up to that point I'm fine. It's when they tell me and other people often with a threat of violence or damnation what we can and can't do that they cross the line.
Mind you there is a phrase that goes around that says God is love. The scientific existence of both God and love would be hard to prove.
God is something altogether different.
4 -
And polls are an accurate guideline, right? Hmm. Let's look back and see what happened for Brexit and the USA election.palarsehater said:apologies its 52% that is a poll that was carried out by channel 4 in 2015.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
0 -
I think there may well be some way of spotting some kind of link or pattern in the manifestations of what we decide to call love, fear or happiness, and for that matter anger and terror and the like. Whether that proves those emotions exist as such would be open to a lot of debate, especially as much of the debate would be about man made constructs about what those terms mean.ShootersHillGuru said:
Well love is an emotion that I think you could prove exists in the same way that you could prove eg fear or happiness exists.seth plum said:
Nothing to disagree with here. The oppressive nature of religions has been a very negative force, often counteracting the good that religion does.Henry Irving said:I don't believe any
seth plum said:This entity that doesn't exist thing is interesting philosophically. There is a line of thought that says it exists if it is seated within people, and the existence is strengthened if enough people agree about it. It is added to by the reactive manifestations of that agreement in lifestyle, ceremony, clothing, language and the like.
Few people question the existence of 'love', yet love itself exists because of the observances of the phenomena, not because it can be scientifically proved.
I don't believe anyone claims love is an entity or supreme being. It is an emotion.seth plum said:This entity that doesn't exist thing is interesting philosophically. There is a line of thought that says it exists if it is seated within people, and the existence is strengthened if enough people agree about it. It is added to by the reactive manifestations of that agreement in lifestyle, ceremony, clothing, language and the like.
Few people question the existence of 'love', yet love itself exists because of the observances of the phenomena, not because it can be scientifically proved.
People do claim the God, by whatever name they call him, exists, influences the world and sets out rules for what people must do and more often not do to please him.
Up to that point I'm fine. It's when they tell me and other people often with a threat of violence or damnation what we can and can't do that they cross the line.
Mind you there is a phrase that goes around that says God is love. The scientific existence of both God and love would be hard to prove.
God is something altogether different.
A bit like God and religion being a man made construct.0 - Sponsored links:
-
But "love" and "God" are not equivalents.seth plum said:
I think there may well be some way of spotting some kind of link or pattern in the manifestations of what we decide to call love, fear or happiness, and for that matter anger and terror and the like. Whether that proves those emotions exist as such would be open to a lot of debate, especially as much of the debate would be about man made constructs about what those terms mean.ShootersHillGuru said:
Well love is an emotion that I think you could prove exists in the same way that you could prove eg fear or happiness exists.seth plum said:
Nothing to disagree with here. The oppressive nature of religions has been a very negative force, often counteracting the good that religion does.Henry Irving said:I don't believe any
seth plum said:This entity that doesn't exist thing is interesting philosophically. There is a line of thought that says it exists if it is seated within people, and the existence is strengthened if enough people agree about it. It is added to by the reactive manifestations of that agreement in lifestyle, ceremony, clothing, language and the like.
Few people question the existence of 'love', yet love itself exists because of the observances of the phenomena, not because it can be scientifically proved.
I don't believe anyone claims love is an entity or supreme being. It is an emotion.seth plum said:This entity that doesn't exist thing is interesting philosophically. There is a line of thought that says it exists if it is seated within people, and the existence is strengthened if enough people agree about it. It is added to by the reactive manifestations of that agreement in lifestyle, ceremony, clothing, language and the like.
Few people question the existence of 'love', yet love itself exists because of the observances of the phenomena, not because it can be scientifically proved.
People do claim the God, by whatever name they call him, exists, influences the world and sets out rules for what people must do and more often not do to please him.
Up to that point I'm fine. It's when they tell me and other people often with a threat of violence or damnation what we can and can't do that they cross the line.
Mind you there is a phrase that goes around that says God is love. The scientific existence of both God and love would be hard to prove.
God is something altogether different.
A bit like God and religion being a man made construct.
it is a specious argument that as it is difficult to prove that love exists or define it the same applies to God as if God were an emotion.
0 -
Well yes I am linking the two to an extent, but in a post above I have also discussed morality, which was intended to try to understand what engines drive religions, and the belief in God.Henry Irving said:
But "love" and "God" are not equivalents.seth plum said:
I think there may well be some way of spotting some kind of link or pattern in the manifestations of what we decide to call love, fear or happiness, and for that matter anger and terror and the like. Whether that proves those emotions exist as such would be open to a lot of debate, especially as much of the debate would be about man made constructs about what those terms mean.ShootersHillGuru said:
Well love is an emotion that I think you could prove exists in the same way that you could prove eg fear or happiness exists.seth plum said:
Nothing to disagree with here. The oppressive nature of religions has been a very negative force, often counteracting the good that religion does.Henry Irving said:I don't believe any
seth plum said:This entity that doesn't exist thing is interesting philosophically. There is a line of thought that says it exists if it is seated within people, and the existence is strengthened if enough people agree about it. It is added to by the reactive manifestations of that agreement in lifestyle, ceremony, clothing, language and the like.
Few people question the existence of 'love', yet love itself exists because of the observances of the phenomena, not because it can be scientifically proved.
I don't believe anyone claims love is an entity or supreme being. It is an emotion.seth plum said:This entity that doesn't exist thing is interesting philosophically. There is a line of thought that says it exists if it is seated within people, and the existence is strengthened if enough people agree about it. It is added to by the reactive manifestations of that agreement in lifestyle, ceremony, clothing, language and the like.
Few people question the existence of 'love', yet love itself exists because of the observances of the phenomena, not because it can be scientifically proved.
People do claim the God, by whatever name they call him, exists, influences the world and sets out rules for what people must do and more often not do to please him.
Up to that point I'm fine. It's when they tell me and other people often with a threat of violence or damnation what we can and can't do that they cross the line.
Mind you there is a phrase that goes around that says God is love. The scientific existence of both God and love would be hard to prove.
God is something altogether different.
A bit like God and religion being a man made construct.
it is a specious argument that as it is difficult to prove that love exists or define it the same applies to God as if God were an emotion.
We have laws, which at their best are seated in an understanding of morality, but also link to religion. 'Thou shalt not kill' for example.
Now there are people who don't care and will kill anyway whatever the law, and I don't think people refuse to kill solely because of the law, but because of some kind of personal code and sense of restraint.
Am I the only person who thinks these issues are interlinked in some way, for good and for bad?
To put it simply (for my own benefit) despite God apparently being God, and love apparently being an emotion, I am not convinced the existence of either can be proved.
Mind you the Tooth Fairy exists. FACT.0 -
I believe religion is more destructive than alcohol and smoking, and like voting for politicians you need to be at least 16 to make an informed choice. Most religions indoctrinate kids from an early age.6
-
The engine that drives religion is self-preservation - follow the faith in this life (i.e. be good, do what you're told and don't give me any bother) and your reward will be everlasting life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Or put more bluntly, a means by which the ruling classes could control the masses.seth plum said:
Well yes I am linking the two to an extent, but in a post above I have also discussed morality, which was intended to try to understand what engines drive religions, and the belief in God.Henry Irving said:
But "love" and "God" are not equivalents.seth plum said:
I think there may well be some way of spotting some kind of link or pattern in the manifestations of what we decide to call love, fear or happiness, and for that matter anger and terror and the like. Whether that proves those emotions exist as such would be open to a lot of debate, especially as much of the debate would be about man made constructs about what those terms mean.ShootersHillGuru said:
Well love is an emotion that I think you could prove exists in the same way that you could prove eg fear or happiness exists.seth plum said:
Nothing to disagree with here. The oppressive nature of religions has been a very negative force, often counteracting the good that religion does.Henry Irving said:I don't believe any
seth plum said:This entity that doesn't exist thing is interesting philosophically. There is a line of thought that says it exists if it is seated within people, and the existence is strengthened if enough people agree about it. It is added to by the reactive manifestations of that agreement in lifestyle, ceremony, clothing, language and the like.
Few people question the existence of 'love', yet love itself exists because of the observances of the phenomena, not because it can be scientifically proved.
I don't believe anyone claims love is an entity or supreme being. It is an emotion.seth plum said:This entity that doesn't exist thing is interesting philosophically. There is a line of thought that says it exists if it is seated within people, and the existence is strengthened if enough people agree about it. It is added to by the reactive manifestations of that agreement in lifestyle, ceremony, clothing, language and the like.
Few people question the existence of 'love', yet love itself exists because of the observances of the phenomena, not because it can be scientifically proved.
People do claim the God, by whatever name they call him, exists, influences the world and sets out rules for what people must do and more often not do to please him.
Up to that point I'm fine. It's when they tell me and other people often with a threat of violence or damnation what we can and can't do that they cross the line.
Mind you there is a phrase that goes around that says God is love. The scientific existence of both God and love would be hard to prove.
God is something altogether different.
A bit like God and religion being a man made construct.
it is a specious argument that as it is difficult to prove that love exists or define it the same applies to God as if God were an emotion.
We have laws, which at their best are seated in an understanding of morality, but also link to religion. 'Thou shalt not kill' for example.
Now there are people who don't care and will kill anyway whatever the law, and I don't think people refuse to kill solely because of the law, but because of some kind of personal code and sense of restraint.
Am I the only person who thinks these issues are interlinked in some way, for good and for bad?
To put it simply (for my own benefit) despite God apparently being God, and love apparently being an emotion, I am not convinced the existence of either can be proved.
Mind you the Tooth Fairy exists. FACT.
That works when everyone has the same religion - the problems start to occur when different religions clash.7 -
the brexit and us election polls were marginally out wasnt a landslide so instead of 52% it maybe 42% thats 4 out of 10, 2.6 million muslims in uk 1,092,000 think homosexuality should be illegal. thats quite a lot of people.Rob said:
And polls are an accurate guideline, right? Hmm. Let's look back and see what happened for Brexit and the USA election.palarsehater said:apologies its 52% that is a poll that was carried out by channel 4 in 2015.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law0 -
Last night's episode was interesting again I thought.....although the constant in fighting did appear to be more manufactured.
A lot of focus on the impact of that posh bloke that came in to try and demonstrate British values. He was getting on my Ertha's - so can see why some of the Muslim guys were pissed off with him.
The internal arguing in the group was portrayed as very aggressive....but I'm not sure how much this would differ from any group of strangers thrown together big brother style.
Overall I thought the program was interesting but didn't really mean that much.
A bit like religion itself.0 -
Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims......well, broadly speaking as things are in the world right now that is.1
-
In a survey in 2013 it was found that 22% of the adult population of the UK believed that same sex relationships were 'always wrong'. So that's about 13 million and even if 'all' muslims were against same sex relationships it would mean over 10 million non-muslims were also. That's quite a lot of people!palarsehater said:
the brexit and us election polls were marginally out wasnt a landslide so instead of 52% it maybe 42% thats 4 out of 10, 2.6 million muslims in uk 1,092,000 think homosexuality should be illegal. thats quite a lot of people.Rob said:
And polls are an accurate guideline, right? Hmm. Let's look back and see what happened for Brexit and the USA election.palarsehater said:apologies its 52% that is a poll that was carried out by channel 4 in 2015.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law2 -
Nonsense.SoundAsa£ said:Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims......well, broadly speaking as things are in the world right now that is.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html7 -
Well Henry.....I did say 'broadly speaking' as things are today.....not precisely acurate I know, but can you please tell me of any other group/organisation etc, that come even remotely close to them by number....then I might have some other understanding as to why you call it nonsense?Henry Irving said:
Nonsense.SoundAsa£ said:Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims......well, broadly speaking as things are in the world right now that is.
0
