Brian Dunning, of the fabulous podcast Skeptoid, has produced a 40 min video which is titled “Here be Dragons“. It is an introductory course on skepticism, and while I haven’t had time to watch the whole think yet, I trust Brian’s abilities unconditionally (even though he’s always reminding his readers to question everything he says, that’s just how awesome this guy is) to plug it here in my humble blog. Go see it.
And speaking of Skeptoid you must check out episode #105 When People Talk Backwards. It is deliciously awesome.
Now, generally I tend to like people that sue the church, because most of the time they have a good reason for doing so, but I can’t help but side with the church in their fight against this idiot.
A man said he was so consumed by the spirit of God that he fell and hit his head while at a Knoxville church.
Now he wants Lakewind Church to pay $2.5 million for medical bills, lost income, and pain and suffering he said he’s endured from his injuries.
The Sevier County man said he was asking God to have “a real experience” while praying at church.
He said he has fallen from the force of the spirit before but has always been caught by someone.
It looks like the “spirit of God” is to blame, not the church, so I wonder why he’s not suing God. After all did he not go voluntarily into the church seeking to experience exactly what he did? So what is he accusing the church of, doing their job too well? I mean he asked God for a “real experience” himself. What’s more real than falling on your empty nugget and being reminded of just how stupid you’d been acting? Dismissed!
The Pope is in Australia for the World Youth Day and he is supposed to apologize for:
decades of sexual abuse of children by priests.
Apologize? That’s it? This is the equivalent of catching a kid with their hands in the cookie jar and letting them go with an apology. Well, come to think of it most parents will do just that, but you get my drift. Usually a crime is followed by a suitable punishment. If wide spread sexual abuse involved any other institution but a religious one, would we expect such leniency? Of course not, they would be persecuted like you wouldn’t believe, but no, not the Church. The Church has been covering up such abuses for decades and all they have to do is say “sorry” and they’re home free. Am I the only one who is disgusted that even child sexual abuse can be overlooked by the authorities if the Church is involved? Fucking disgusting!
But of course it isn’t. Both Christianity and Islam are violent religions, if you stick to their holy books. One need only read through these books to see that. Take a look here for the violence in the Quran. Here’s a recap of some of my favorites (I am looking at a translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali other translations may vary):
- If you believe only part of the holy book you will be “consigned to the most grievious penalty” 2:85 (Therefore according to the Quran any real muslim must believe every single word in it or perish)
- Kill unbelievers wherever you catch them. 2:191
- A great reward is promised to those who fight in the cause of Allah (presumably by killing any unbelievers they catch) 4:74
- Unbelievers are the friends of Satan, and you must fight them. 4:76
- Don’t be friends with unbelievers. Instead slay them. 4:89
- Cut off the hands of thieves 5:38
I could go on and on. The Bible is not free of such violence and intolerance either. But that’s not the point of this entry. The point is that, at least as far as the two most prominent world religions are concerned, they are not peaceful in nature. Their gods are vengeful ones. They are intolerant bullies. If we are to take the holy books literally these are two bloody violent religions, there’s not doubt about it. The only way you can turn them non-violent is if you agree that not everything in the holy books is true or meant to be interpreted literally, even though I don’t really think that “go kill unbelievers” can be interpreted for anything else besided what is explicitly says.
Therefore, Dalai Lama, you are wrong. It is not “totally wrong, unfair” to say that Islam is a violent religion. It is the reality today. Christianity for the most part has been able to shed or ignore it’s violent passages. Islam has not reached that stage yet. Both holy books incite intolerance and killing, maiming and all kinds of atrocities. It is the believers who decide which parts to follow and which to ignore and as of right now, some of the biggest attrocities are being commited by muslims, fueled by their religious belief.
That is not to say that Muslims inevitably must turn violent. I don’t even think that the majority of Muslims are of the violent type. But that is their personal choice. There is nothing peaceful about the religion itself. Those people are more evolved in my eyes than the violent ones. They’re more humane, more modern. They choose to ignore the violence in their religion. They choose to throw out the nasty and keep the nice. As such they have deliberately changed the religion of Islam into something else. But the religion itself is pretty nasty, just the same as the Christian religion is pretty nasty.
I like to think of modern day Nazis. It is possible for modern day nazis to still believe in the superiority of the Arian race and such, but to be against physial violence against other races. Does that mean that Nazism is/was not violent? Or does it mean that the modern day followers that I am speaking of have transformed a violent thing into a less violent one? In what sense is a philosphy which asks its followers to kill, kill and kill some more not violent?
A philosophy is either violent or it isn’t. One that asks for blood of any oposing views is undeniably violent. Of course it is up to its followers to decide if they should follow the dictates of their philosophy or not. The people are violent or peaceful. They have a choice. The philosophy doesn’t. It is unfair to call muslims violent people. That is indeed not true. It is not unfair to call Islam, or Christianity, a violent religion. It is dishonest to try and be politically correct by calling a rabid dog docile. Don’t you think?