Is Shariah law really such an awful thing?

Post Reply New Topic

Someone's been reading too much Richard Dawkins.

Been there some time ago but now I don't leave my apartment much unless I got to get groceries or go to the doctor.

And no I haven't read Dawkins yet, I rather came to the conclusion myself. Parents took me to the synagogue and the stories didn't really add up. I researched other religions and came to the same conclusions.

if you stopped at that, then you stopped too soon. you can't draw any conclusions about people from the message they look toward, because there's not much literal value to it. if you want to understand religion, you need to understand people first. and if you don't or won't or can't, then all you can say about it is that it's not for you and you don't understand what it's about

there is a human need and search for things that don't make sense, in order to make sense of things that already don't make sense on their own. because rational thinking is only a tiny portion of the way how the human brain works, and it's only a tiny portion of how we perceive our life and environment and, most importantly, how we perceive and define ourselves

when religion doesn't fulfill that role, other things do. sometimes that's not a problem (and, granted, religion itself often is a problem). but when there's the illusion that we really are masters of ourselves, it takes away more control than it grants. the first step to any and all knowledge is the acknowledgement of the vastness of what can't be known

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=324318&p=7253218#p7253218

All you are doing is shielding religion, just because I think it is stupid and doesn't make sense. Did you ever read me telling people they can't believe whatever? I still think religious dogma is a dangerous thing that people who are too lazy to think of alternatives (such as morals and stuff) or can't find earthly things to comfort them turn to.

i'm just saying that other things can be and often are stupid and senseless in very similar ways as religion can be, while on the other hand religion sometimes actually serves a valid purpose, regardless if its contents make logical sense or not


there's still an implication of inferiority anyway. "they can, but it means they's stupid/lazy/etc". i think that's something you're free to believe, btw


it's dogma that is dangerous. whether it's religious or not is irrelevant. the assumption that it's particular to religion is a major part of what makes it easy for it to exist insidiously outside of religion. and the assumption easily becomes dogma itself


there's no connection between stupidity and inability/impossibility to find earthly comfort

I never excluded the dogmas of other ideologies. I said "religious" because we are talking about religion. It feels to me you are trying to make religion look less evil by comparing it to other ideologies in a sense of "they are doing it too so that somehow should make it okay".

And sure in the context, it doesn't imply a general stupidity but a specific one. For instance, I may be qualified, intelligent and competent in some areas but stupid in others. In the instance of an inability to find earthly comforts, it is partially a bias and partially a genuine lack of deeper thought or creativity. It is extraordinarily rare for an atheist to become religious, but more common for a theist to become more or less religious based on life events or external influences.

It's a pity you confine yourself to your home in a place like Vienna.

Ever seen the Lipizzaners? They're white horses who are trained in the fine art of Dressage.

Then you have the Blue Danube.

to be clear: i'm not talking about religious legal systems. this has already been addressed extensively, and everybody here agrees it's no good, even the op herself. and i'm not talking about islam either. i have my opinions on it, and they're generally not favorable, but i'm keeping them to myself because i'm not knowledgeable enough, and also because i sympathize with the op and see no reason to challenge her any further. so by now we're only going off on tangents here

my point is you're singling out religion for things that don't make it unique. if not with your thoughts, then with your language. religion is not inherently good or bad, it's only a certain way how general social elements are combined and organized into a belief system, associated with certain themes, and then extending to different elements of social organization depending on the nature of the particular belief system. both the good things about it and the bad things about it (which exist to varying degrees depending a lot on the particular types of belief and the types of authority attributed to it in each context) are shared with many other types of systems, institutions, philosophies, ideologies and social spheres

And according to multiperspectivity, I disagree with you anagram. Religion is a cancer and generally when identity is more than just an identity (pride), stuff just goes to hell. That is the irony of my username, sort of a pun. I may be autistic, but in many cases the labelling of oneself as aspie or autie (rather aspie though, as I have only seen one other person on this site use "autie") can hint a further implication that someone may take such identity serious enough to try to stand out beyond reason (a forced stand-outishness). So myself for example is more of a brew than a clearly categorized conglomerate of identity labels. I may be biologically female, however I do not care about my gender identity, I do not identify as atheist or theist, I have no sexual preference yet cannot call myself asexual. There are more important things in life than to dwell on identity, such as trying to figure out how people thing or get into their heads.

Kraftiekortie, I have seen many things. I just don't like leaving my apartment, because I don't like people or crowds. It is easier to go out at night when no one is around and it is quiet.

I get you. I like going out in the wee hours, too.

i think maybe you're talking about religion in the sense that i would normally refer to as "organized religion", which, yes, i am opposed to myself. those are living fossils of ancient forms of government. i'm not necessarily opposed to their followers and their respective beliefs though. they often have their valid motives, even if they may be contributing to a harmful phenomenon collectively

following a path of least resistance is basic instinct and common sense when things seem to be working out for you, and group identity is an evolutionary instinct (which apparently i lack, but still, i understand i'm the exception). i'm all for the gradual and systematic dissolution of religion into "metaphysical philosophy", "cultural mysticism", "folk wisdom" and "community bonding", with no unquestionable authority left to it

so what i can't see is how it could be justified to call anyone stupid simply for adhering to religious beliefs

People can be wrongly convicted of theft. If someone is wrongly convicted and has a hand chopped off, when it is found out he is innocent he cannot get his hand back.