POLL: Should NoFap have a forum section for faith / spirituality discussion?

There is no nice way to put this. You are completely uninformed of the geopolitics of that region and of WWII history.
Do yourself a favor, go some objective sources (not the richard dawkins forums) and read up on the geopolitics of that region..

you're making reality warp into fitting your ideology which others have pointed out, is the clear sign of a fanatic.

No doubt like like those murderous atheists who murdered 10x the number that died under the nazis.

 

Yeah we're all ignorant and you know all about the geopolitics of everything. Do you know anything besides geopolitics, athiests murdering clergy and Richard Dawkins? Have you read the old testament? I recommend starting here:
1. The Flood (Genesis 6-8)
2. The cities of the plain, including Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18-19)
3. The Egyptian firstborn sons during the Passover (Exodus 11-12)
4. The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua (Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21)
5. The Amalekites annihilated by Saul (1 Samuel 15)

 

You love going off topics talking about random geopolitical shit don't you. Serious question: are you drunk? you sound like a broken record.

Adolf Hitler was a catholic and so was the Nazi movement (proof above). The end.

 

Woah I see this religious and science discussion. And I'm just a 15 year old Muslim that chose for extra science at school (bio, physics, chem and math). My most favourite is bio though, even though I have to be good in chemistry because I'm Muslim.

Bad people are everywhere, end of discussion. There are bad Muslims, bad Christians, bad atheists, bad Jews, bad teacher(s),..., discussion closed.

 

On the other hand, Alexander, don't make a forum section faith and spirituality, it will be a mess.

I'm Muslim and my post are sometimes faith-related (however I try to avoid it in the general forums), everyone respects that and tries to help me. We also have the different groups for some religions, we already have everything.

I, as a Muslim have no need for an apart faith section.

 

What?

 

It was a little bit dark humour lmao, chemistry --> bombs --> isis.

 

I was thinking that but wanted to make sure.

 

Good joke, isn't it? Lmao I made that joke once during chemistry when we had to explode something, I was like: "I'm Muslim, I'm born for this thing.", got the whole class laughing.

 

The statements are ISIS are clearly false. They are obviously and irrefutably religiously motivated. There is extensive documentation, quoting of the Quran, teaching their young jihadist ideas from the Quran, etc. If you are saying that this is all a ruse for them to take land and oppress others, then where is the justification for that theory?

But the point is moot, because whether any specific individuals have done harmful things in the name of religion, does not equate with the religion itself, and even if one can make binary claims about the effect of religion vs. no religion, that's beside the point of whether any religion is correct; only deals with side effects.

 

It is about how you take the religion, as I've written on my writing exam English (we had to write about 'recent things that happened in the world'): "Lastly, I want to add to my text that not ever Muslim is that way, Islamic terrorism is not Islam, there are more than enough Muslims (and other religious people) who take their holy book with a grain of salt".

Besides the Quran itself says we can't take religious too seriously aka pray all night and read Quran all day and that kinda stuff.

 

Oh yes you're right 'random geopolitical shit' is unnecessary when discussing Isis. You're correct, the Iraq war , western intervention and imposition of culture, the destabilization of the middle east, our support of Israeli settlement building, massive population increase none of it has anything to do with the rise of ISIS.

So why did the pope hide 7000 jews in vatican and thousands of catholic clergy die in concentration camps?

At least 1811 Polish clergy died in Nazi concentration camps. An estimated 3000 clergy were killed in all. Hitler's plans for the Germanization of the East saw no place for the Christian Churches.[1]
Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London p.661

No mentally stable, rational person sees the National Socialism as a Catholic movement....

 

Oh yes you're right that explains the behavior of the Amish, the quakers,, St. Francis Assisi and Mother Thersea. As opposed to those peace loving atheist who murdered millions in communist Russia, Ukraine and China

 

no I am saying their behavior does not exist in a vaccuum.

quote:

Despite the existence of a good deal of research about terrorism, there’s a gap between the common understanding of what leads terrorists to kill and what many experts believe to be true.

Terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda are widely seen as being motivated by their radical theology. But according to Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago and founder of the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism, this view is too simplistic. Pape knows his subject; he and his colleagues have studied every suicide attack in the world since 1980, evaluating over 4,600 in all.

He says that religious fervor is not a motive unto itself. Rather, it serves as a tool for recruitment and a potent means of getting people to overcome their fear of death and natural aversion to killing innocents. “Very often, suicide attackers realize they have instincts for self-preservation that they have to overcome,” and religious beliefs are often part of that process, said Pape

What 95 percent of all suicide attacks have in common, since 1980, is not religion, but a specific strategic motivation to respond to a military intervention, often specifically a military occupation, of territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly. From Lebanon and the West Bank in the 80s and 90s, to Iraq and Afghanistan, and up through the Paris suicide attacks we’ve just experienced in the last days, military intervention—and specifically when the military intervention is occupying territory—that’s what prompts suicide terrorism more than anything else.

 

The article you quoted is very poorly written, and either the author of it or Pape have a very misguided understanding. No one is arguing that ISIS and religious ideology occurs in a vacuum. Certainly there are geopolitical forces (ie oppression by Western countries for at least decades, and numerous atrocities). But saying that ISIS is using religious ideology in order to obtain land and power is a chicken and egg issue. I (and many others, probably the vast majority) would argue that they want the power and land to establish their religious caliphate. The fact that the ground ISIS fighters have rudimentary understandings of Islam is beside the point. The fact that they are motivated by different reasons doesn't mean that their superiors are.

@MuslimNoPorn , I'm not sure why you quoted my post, but you don't have to tell me that not every Muslim is like that. I've had close friends who are Muslim. All of them have since moved out of my area. One stopped responding to phone calls/texts. I have to say that I've noticed some general distrust of non-Muslims by Muslims. It's hard to say what has caused this, whether it's because of general anti-Muslim sentiment, or based on specific teachings in the Quran.

 

certain people (not you) on this thread are doing just that.

No, the 'chicken' in this case was our over-reaching in that region, supporting Israeli expansion, imposition of our beliefs (the 'religion' of secular democracy, but managed so we get the results we want) destabilization.

Poorly written or not, if you compare ISIS to any partisan fighters in any time period, the behavior will be similar, secular, christian, islamic, jewish, whatever. They are always ruthless because they usually don't have the same military power as their enemy. So their behavior is always 'shocking' ,whether you agree with the cause or not.

I would agree that they want to establish a caliphate, That is the traditional way their societies organized. Caliphates, like monarchies vary in their benevolence -a good or wise ruler could actually be better for most people than a cruel or corrupt democracy. democracies can be oppressive - of course so can monarchs and other forms of government.

 

Mass killings has and will always be conducted in the name and under the influence of religion. The Bible and Quran commanded people to carry out massacres. You may not like this to be associated with the beliefs you uphold but it's part of your religion nonetheless. ISIS, al-qaeda, the Nazis, KKK, the Israelites, etc are versions of the same thing. Sure political elements are involved but religion is at the heart of it all. Hatred and superiority over other religions is built into every single religion, because the people who initiated and wrote the religion had those inclinations.

 

mass killings were also conducted in the name of atheism, equality and a host of other ideas.

 

So how do you explain atheistic communist murdering 120 million people?

 

Being an ahiest doesnt mean all ahiests are the same. So all of a sudden athiestism is nowna religion and all the athiests are all the same and all beleive in one thing? I thought all athiests are all different personally and are simply people who dont have a religion?