Would the world be a better place without religion?

[dimreepr]

You become a Muslim by saying these words: "La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasoolu Allah"

But one of the pillars of being Muslim is to believe that the Holy Quran is the literal word of God, revealed by Him. In order to be Muslim, you need to acknowledge the Quran teaches absolute morality. You can of course interpret Quran verses like you want.(just like the Bible) If people are taught those verses and the absolute morality then that (for many, not for all of them) forms their personality.

"The Qur'an is the means for discovering the will of God and for measuring the success of a life lived in accordance with it. As such, it shapes the individual and collective lives of Muslims in many ways. "

 

"The Qur'an, which serves as the primary source of Islamic law, advanced the field of law beyond custom and oral tradition."

 

"The Qur'an also functions as a basic source of Muslim education. Although a large majority of the world's Muslim population does not speak Arabic, in most Muslim societies young children learn the Arabic alphabet to read the Qur'an in its original language. The book also provides the first reading lessons for these young students. "

 

"The scripture provides guidelines for social, political, and economic activities. Its teachings on family law guide behavior in marriage, divorce, and inheritance"

http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t243/e275

 

You should watch this:

 

 

Yes but that's only for the public sector for degree level education and it's only 296,832 students.

"The gender disparity in education is much lower in urban places vis-à-vis rural areas." => this trend is very hopeful I think.

 

Those statistics are just a few of them. Many countries that show likewise statistics are not on that list. Do you deny that Islam and criminality are strongly linked? You know about the punishment for adultery, apostasy an being raped? Islam (the religion of peace )teaches criminality and ignorance...

 

 

Just more unsupported assertions, rinse and repeat, you know the old 'I'm right because I said so'.

[Itoero]

Well this certainly isn't evidence; you take out of context two highly interpretive text's and demand 'that makes me right'.

 

 

Here's a couple of interpretations, that provides a little context and suggests a different more peaceful interpretation.

 

http://jewishstudies.eteacherbiblical.com/did-jesus-call-hoi-ioudaioi-the-children-of-the-devil-john-837-46/

 

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35154/is-jesus-statement-that-satan-is-the-father-of-the-jews-anti-jewish

 

Let me give you a little context: Imagine you live in a gentle peaceful community among a group of warlike communities, fighting among themselves; due to this their society is threatened by a lack of young women, so they take to kidnapping the women they need.

 

In this context taking some precautions would be very reasonable, wouldn't you agree?

Don't you understand how wrong you are?

Interpreting verses to pretend they are moral or misunderstood is something that religious people do...and so do you apparently.

You have zero evidence that an interpretation is correct.

That's another problem with scripture-based religion. The idea that scripture has a divine source is an unscientific belief and the idea that an interpretation is the correct one is also an unscientific belief.

 

How do you know what to believe, ignore or interpret?

[dimreepr]

How do you know what to believe, ignore or interpret?

 

I know because I found contentment, and recognise the process; 30/40 years of pain and suffering, lots of introspection, a trigger event to lift the veil too understanding, followed by a 40ish day sabbatical (edit - to get over whatever we're addicted to) and finally the teaching.

 

So when you look at the bible try to look at it from the POV of a content man trying to teach others how.

Don't you understand how wrong you are?

Interpreting verses to pretend they are moral or misunderstood is something that religious people do...and so do you apparently.

You have zero evidence that an interpretation is correct.

That's another problem with scripture-based religion. The idea that scripture has a divine source is an unscientific belief and the idea that an interpretation is the correct one is also an unscientific belief.

 

Bdack-atcha, but then I did try to explain why my interpretation is, at least, credible

Edited December 26, 2016 by dimreepr

[Itoero]

I know because I found contentment, and recognise the process; 30/40 years of pain and suffering, lots of introspection, a trigger event to lift the veil too understanding, followed by a 40ish day sabbatical (edit - to get over whatever we're addicted to) and finally the teaching.

 

So when you look at the bible try to look at it from the POV of a content man trying to teach others how.

If you find contentment trough scripture then that's good for you but don't assume that that makes your interpretation to be correct. When people read the bible, they don't read interpretations.

 

Bdack-atcha, but then I did try to explain why my interpretation is, at least, credible

So?

[dimreepr]

If you find contentment trough scripture then that's good for you but don't assume that that makes your interpretation to be correct.

 

OK

If you find contentment trough scripture then that's good for you but don't assume that that makes your interpretation to be correct. When people read the bible, they don't read interpretations.

 

 

They read words

[Tampitump]

I've kinda been punking you guys this whole time. Don't get me wrong, I still hold to most of what I've said here, but the arrogant and combative antics I've displayed have all been good fun for me. I'm sorry if I've been offensive, its just funny to me.

Contrary to the advice of Newton, the concept of tact is completely lost on me.

[imatfaal]

I've kinda been punking you guys this whole time. Don't get me wrong, I still hold to most of what I've said here, but the arrogant and combative antics I've displayed have all been good fun for me. I'm sorry if I've been offensive, its just funny to me.

Contrary to the advice of Newton, the concept of tact is completely lost on me.

 

Trolling is pretty poor form - and members will remember it and assume that you are continuing.

 

And I presume you realise that the quote about tact wasn't Isaac Newton but some advertising dude in America? Asking Sir Isaac about tact would be as useful as asking him about who is gonna win next years X-Factor! Sir Isaac Newton was renowned as a fairly nasty and vindictive man who collected enemies, fostered dislike, and seeminly delighted in vitriol

[Itoero]

I wish I had more tact.

[Strange]

I wish I had more tact.

 

 

I wish you had more fact.

[dimreepr]

I've kinda been punking you guys this whole time. Don't get me wrong, I still hold to most of what I've said here, but the arrogant and combative antics I've displayed have all been good fun for me. I'm sorry if I've been offensive, its just funny to me.

Contrary to the advice of Newton, the concept of tact is completely lost on me.

 

You little tinker...

If you find contentment trough scripture then that's good for you but don't assume that that makes your interpretation to be correct. When people read the bible, they don't read interpretations.

 

Of course they aren't correct but they're far more likely to be closer to the truth than your interpretation, for the reasons I've already given. No, they don't read interpretations, they filter the words they read through them, and I'd rather that filter was set on a good value; we all know what happens when the filter has bad intentions

It doesn't matter what words they're reading only the filter gives them meaning.

[Itoero]

I wish you had more fact.

I still don't understand why those statistics and all those facts (things that actually happened) don't prove anything in your opinion.

 

My sister was in a hospital a couple days ago. She shared a room with a very pretty Moroccan girl.

She moved to Belgium because it's nicer to live here but she doesn't work, she detest working.

 

On 19 December 2016, during which a truck was driven into the Christmas market next to the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church at Breitscheidplatz in Berlin, left 12 people dead and 56 others injured. One of the victims was the truck's original driver, Łukasz Urban, who was found shot dead in the passenger seat.

A person, suspected to be the perpetrator, was killed four days later during a shootout with police near Milan in Italy.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) claimed responsibility for the attack, saying the attacker answered its calls to target the citizens of states that are fighting against it.

[Strange]

I still don't understand why those statistics and all those facts (things that actually happened) don't prove anything in your opinion.

 

 

Because the plural of anecdote is not data.

 

You little tinker...

 

 

You say tinker, I say troll (and reported as such). Personally, I would ban him for behaviour like that.

 

 

A person, suspected to be the perpetrator, was killed four days later during a shootout with police near Milan in Italy.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) claimed responsibility for the attack, saying the attacker answered its calls to target the citizens of states that are fighting against it.

 

And the point of that news update is ... what exactly ?

 

Your logic seems to be:

1. there was a terrorist attack

2. a group called Islamic State claimed responsibility (although we have no idea if they really were responsible or not)

3. Therefore the Quran and/or Islam is the leading cause of terrorism.

 

That seems a little lacking in rationality.

 

Or was it simply appealing to emotion ("look what some evil Moslem people did!") just like most extremists do.

[dimreepr]

 

 

You say tinker, I say troll (and reported as such). Personally, I would ban him for behaviour like that.

 

I couldn't find the sarcasm emoticon.

Edited December 27, 2016 by dimreepr

[Itoero]

Of course they aren't correct but they're far more likely to be closer to the truth than your interpretation, for the reasons I've already given. No, they don't read interpretations, they filter the words they read through them, and I'd rather that filter was set on a good value; we all know what happens when the filter has bad intentions

 

It doesn't matter what words they're reading only the filter gives them meaning.

Closer to which truth?

And it's not an interpretation. The bible literally says Jews are sons of Satan.

And how do you know which filter they used?

 

"Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your fathers desires. If I am telling the truth, why dont you believe me?"

 

=>Jesus says they are sons of the devil because they don't love him and don't believe him....that's exactly what makes Jews different from Christians...they don't believe that Jesus comes from God.

 

"There is this idea that Jesus wasn't talking to all Jews, but specific individuals. Obviously, the apostles were all Jews, and even his mother. He wasn't calling them children of Satan."

 

=>That's a misinterpretation. Jesus, the apostles and his mama obviously believed in Jesus and were no Jews...they were the first Christians.

Because the plural of anecdote is not data.

No, You (and most people on this forum apparently) think that the correlation between the data (statistics concerning Muslims in prison and gen pop.) does not account for new valid data. I'm full with 'anecdotes'...those statistics explain the anecdotes.

 

 

And the point of that news update is ... what exactly ?

 

Or was it simply appealing to emotion ("look what some evil Moslem people did!") just like most extremists do.

I like to report news.

 

Do you know other extremists that do those things (raping/groping)? Muslim terrorism is not linked to specific countries, it happens nearly everywhere.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Itoero

[dimreepr]

And how do you know which filter they used?

 

"Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your fathers desires. If I am telling the truth, why dont you believe me?"

 

 

Try this filter: A content man trying to explain heaven (god = heaven = contentment) and hell (satan = hell = discontent) which can only be experienced, here and now.

 

Then that just means; Look fella's, it's OK if you don't want to listen to me, your choice, but if you don't listen you'll never find peace and that's it's own hell, not my fault, your fault!

"There is this idea that Jesus wasn't talking to all Jews, but specific individuals. Obviously, the apostles were all Jews, and even his mother. He wasn't calling them children of Satan."

 

Yes the individuals that were willing to listen to him, whatever they believe.

Hitler's filter was hate and intolerance, which filter have you been using?

Edited December 27, 2016 by dimreepr

[Itoero]

Try this filter: A content man trying to explain heaven (god = heaven = contentment) and hell (satan = hell = discontent) which can only be experienced, here and now.

 

Then that just means; Look fella's, it's OK if you don't want to listen to me, your choice, but if you don't listen you'll never find peace and that's it's own hell, not my fault, your fault!

If I don't listen to you, I'll never find peace? Are you drunk?

 

"Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your fathers desires. If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me?"

 

=>Jesus says they are sons of the devil because they don't love him and don't believe him....that's exactly what makes Jews different from Christians...they don't believe that Jesus comes from God.

 

Hitler was educated like a Roman Catholic

[dimreepr]

If I don't listen to you, I'll never find peace? Are you drunk?

 

Not yet, but I'm working on it...

 

 

"Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your fathers desires. If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me?"

 

=>Jesus says they are sons of the devil because they don't love him and don't believe him....that's exactly what makes Jews different from Christians...they don't believe that Jesus comes from God.

 

Hitler was educated like a Roman Catholic

 

 

Judging by this, your on something stronger, but I do have the answer to my question, you've chosen the dark (side) filter.

Edited December 27, 2016 by dimreepr

[Itoero]

Not yet, but I'm working on it...

I have a red wine with honey and herbs...delicious!

 

Judging by this, your on something stronger, but I do have the answer to my question, you've chosen the dark (side) filter.

Wasn't anti-Jewish sentiment caused by Christianity? Christians had traditionally placed blame on Jewish leaders for the crucifixion of Jesus.

[dimreepr]

Wasn't anti-Jewish sentiment caused by Christianity?

 

No, it was caused by fear, hatred and intolerance.

[Itoero]

No, it was caused by fear, hatred and intolerance.

Antisemitism is fear, hatred and intolerance against Jews.

But what causes the fear and hatred?

The cause can't cause the cause.

[dimreepr]

But what causes the fear and hatred?

 

Intolerance of that which one doesn't understand.

[Strange]

No, You (and most people on this forum apparently) think that the correlation between the data (statistics concerning Muslims in prison and gen pop.)

 

If there is a larger proportion of Muslims in prison than in the population that does not mean it is because of Islam, any more than the fact that there are a disproportionate number of black people in prison mean that melanin causes criminal behaviour. (As statisticians like to say: correlation does not imply causation).

 

https://shop.spreadshirt.co.uk/badscience2/i+think+you-ll+find+it-s+a+bit+more+black+text-A18169149

 

Do you know other extremists that do those things (raping/groping)?

 

Sadly it is, and as far as I know always has been, a component of the violence carried out against populations. The idea was not invented by Islam.

 

Oh that really hurts my feelings.

 

 

Can't see why. The behaviour you were so proud of is textbook trolling. And clearly you don't care about anyone else's feelings but your own.

[Prometheus]

I still don't understand why those statistics and all those facts (things that actually happened) don't prove anything in your opinion.

 

It's fine that you don't understand the scientific method, but you should try to learn it - you must have an interest in it to frequent a science forum, no?

 

I've attached a boxplot from an analysis i have done. Global Peace Index data was taken from here, the majority religion of each country was taken mostly from here. Note Ibadi is a denomination of Islam found in Oman, NA refers to countries for which there was no official info on it (like North Korea), Prot means Protestantism, indigenous refers to various local religious beliefs, and None refers to countries were the majority follow no religion.

 

I'll let people draw there own conclusions (i'm not going to as i could easily p-hack the data), but i share it because this is what scientists want to see when they ask for evidence, not news headlines, or 'my sister in hospital saw...' So when next someone asks for evidence, show them something like this, best from a peer reviewed journal unless you fancy doing it yourself.

 

I also have data on homocide rates, wealth, scientific output and religiosity (percentage of people in a country for whom religion is important). I'll knock up a multiple regression model to explore it if/when i get a chance.

 

Also, i'm happy to share data if anyone wants to analyse it themselves.

 

 

Now, Itoero do you understand why we don't except repetition of a few data points (with some anecdotes chucked in) as evidence? Also, now you know what we are looking for, can you now provide the evidence?

 

Oh, don't confuse what I said. I only meant that the combative style was the trolling part. I'm still correct on this issue, and you guys are still liberal, PC pussies.

 

The issue has nothing to do with anyone's political bias, it is matter of evidence, and if it is as obvious as has been pointed out then the evidence should be really easy to show. Something like i shared above perhaps.

GPIvsRel.pdf

GPIvsRel.pdf

[Tampitump]

Can't see why. The behaviour you were so proud of is textbook trolling. And clearly you don't care about anyone else's feelings but your own.

Well, it was sarcasm. But I agree. The behavior was regrettable. I'm kind of conflicted over it. I started going down that trajectory, and out of a sort of pride, I kept up with it because I didn't want to admit fault. But now I'm kind of over that.

 

If you'll give me one more chance Strange, I'd like to know what your position is regarding the extent of religion's influence on atrocity, terrorism, ignorance, etc. My position is that it is very high. I happen to live in a very religious part of the world, so perhaps that skews my perception. I'm just interested to know what your position actually is. That is, if you don't mind reiterating it to me at this point.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Tampitump

[Strange]

If you'll give me one more chance Strange, I'd like to know what your position is regarding the extent of religion's influence on atrocity, terrorism, ignorance, etc. My position is that it is very high. I happen to live in a very religious part of the world, so perhaps that skews my perception. I'm just interested to know what your position actually is. That is, if you don't mind reiterating it to me at this point.

 

 

I don't have much of a position because I haven't seen much data. But as the overwhelming majority of religious people are not terrorists and do not commit atrocities, I can't see it is a major factor in those things.

 

I have no idea on the relative levels of education versus religiosity. I would guess the pictures is very mixed. Religious organizations have always had a role in eduction (the first schools and universities in many countries were religious) but on the other hand many countries with a high level of religious belief are also poor and may not have the government and resources to ensure good education.

 

If there are correlations between these things and religion, I would guess that it is more likely that there are a large number of other influences rather a simplistic "it is caused by religion".