Muslims losing faith

[DrZoidberg]

http://www.theguardian.com/global/2...-ex-muslims-non-believers-hidden-crisis-faith

Here's a good article about being brought up Muslim and well... quitting that, and the hurdles they face. Reminds me a lot of how ex-Jehova's witnesses are treated, or ex-scientologists. Sad shit.

 

[ronburgundy]

BTW, this relates to your other thread on whether Islam is more violent Christianity. As I argued there, the core ideas are similarly enabling of intolerant authoritarian aggression. The differences lie in the other contextual factors that mediate and moderate the impact of these ideas on behavior. The fact that parents would disown a child over non-belief or a community would allow a member to be threatened over it is a manifestation of that intolerant aggression. This was very common in Christian families and communities too, and still is practiced in highly insular Christian communities. Such harsh reactions to non-believers stems for actual true belief in the kind of authoritarian intolerant God of the Bible and Koran.
Such true belief is more widespread among Muslims than Christians, due to the larger post-enlightenment secular forces present in western societies in which Christians exist. Even those with such true belief are coerced to be more restrained in their reactions to non-believers in their families and communities by the secular ethics of the larger community.

 

[Underseer]

Considering how rapidly British Christians are losing their faith, it should surprise no one that something similar is happening with British Muslims.

What I find more interesting is the erosion of faith in traditional Muslim strongholds. That data is harder to track accurately given the tendency of Muslims to kill apostates, but the signs seem to be pointing in that direction.

 

[DrZoidberg]

BTW, this relates to your other thread on whether Islam is more violent Christianity. As I argued there, the core ideas are similarly enabling of intolerant authoritarian aggression. The differences lie in the other contextual factors that mediate and moderate the impact of these ideas on behavior. The fact that parents would disown a child over non-belief or a community would allow a member to be threatened over it is a manifestation of that intolerant aggression. This was very common in Christian families and communities too, and still is practiced in highly insular Christian communities. Such harsh reactions to non-believers stems for actual true belief in the kind of authoritarian intolerant God of the Bible and Koran.
Such true belief is more widespread among Muslims than Christians, due to the larger post-enlightenment secular forces present in western societies in which Christians exist. Even those with such true belief are coerced to be more restrained in their reactions to non-believers in their families and communities by the secular ethics of the larger community.

I agree. Europe/The Christian world have just had Enlightenment ideals in the mainstream longer than the "Islamic world". So it's not strange that they behave like we in the Christian West used to a hundred years ago. I think that the Islamic world will have an identical trajectory. I truly believe that the Bible and Koran are two fully interchangeable books. How they're read is more important than what their texts say.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Considering how rapidly British Christians are losing their faith, it should surprise no one that something similar is happening with British Muslims.

What I find more interesting is the erosion of faith in traditional Muslim strongholds. That data is harder to track accurately given the tendency of Muslims to kill apostates, but the signs seem to be pointing in that direction.

We had a similar development in Northern Europe in the end of the 19'th to the first half of the 20'th century. It was important to be a Christian, but what it meant to be Christian eroded rapidly. Sweden went from 100% Christian in 1950 to 10% Christian in 1960. On paper everybody just stopped believing over-night all at once. But in reality the death of faith had been a long and slow development. Hard to track statistically. Belonging to a religion is binary, while faith is gradual.

 

[Underseer]

Considering how rapidly British Christians are losing their faith, it should surprise no one that something similar is happening with British Muslims.

What I find more interesting is the erosion of faith in traditional Muslim strongholds. That data is harder to track accurately given the tendency of Muslims to kill apostates, but the signs seem to be pointing in that direction.

We had a similar development in Northern Europe in the end of the 19'th to the first half of the 20'th century. It was important to be a Christian, but what it meant to be Christian eroded rapidly. Sweden went from 100% Christian in 1950 to 10% Christian in 1960. On paper everybody just stopped believing over-night all at once. But in reality the death of faith had been a long and slow development. Hard to track statistically. Belonging to a religion is binary, while faith is gradual.

The signs for the middle east are promising.

The rate at which the words "atheist" or "atheism" get used on the Arabic side of Twitter keeps increasing. Muslim religious leaders are talking more and more about the evils of atheism. Muslim governments are cracking down on outspoken atheists more and more. Angry Muslim mobs are attacking outspoken atheists more and more.

All of these pieces of evidence are circumstantial, but they point to an erosion of faith in some of the biggest Muslim strongholds.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We had a similar development in Northern Europe in the end of the 19'th to the first half of the 20'th century. It was important to be a Christian, but what it meant to be Christian eroded rapidly. Sweden went from 100% Christian in 1950 to 10% Christian in 1960. On paper everybody just stopped believing over-night all at once. But in reality the death of faith had been a long and slow development. Hard to track statistically. Belonging to a religion is binary, while faith is gradual.

The signs for the middle east are promising.

The rate at which the words "atheist" or "atheism" get used on the Arabic side of Twitter keeps increasing. Muslim religious leaders are talking more and more about the evils of atheism. Muslim governments are cracking down on outspoken atheists more and more. Angry Muslim mobs are attacking outspoken atheists more and more.

All of these pieces of evidence are circumstantial, but they point to an erosion of faith in some of the biggest Muslim strongholds.

Wait.... stop right there. Historically the word "atheist" has mostly been a pejorative. It just means people with a warped and bad moral sense, rather than anything deep or philosofical. Just replace it with the word "evil" and it makes more sense. There's no need to feel targetted by these people even if you are an atheist. Many, if not most theists use the term atheist wrongly, and in the above fashion. So the fact that people are talking about the evils of atheism doesn't really mean anything on what they feel about actual atheism.

Many people in religious comunities find the notion that people can find good moral values on their own inconceivable. Becuase they have been spoonfed all their lives that religion is necessary for morals. That's all this means. Once actual out an open atheists start appearing in their communities... yes, their will be... then this entire problem will go away super fast. Also.. faster than in Europe. Because when atheism started to take hold here there were no atheist communities anywhere. Now there are, and we have Internet today.

 

[Underseer]

The signs for the middle east are promising.

The rate at which the words "atheist" or "atheism" get used on the Arabic side of Twitter keeps increasing. Muslim religious leaders are talking more and more about the evils of atheism. Muslim governments are cracking down on outspoken atheists more and more. Angry Muslim mobs are attacking outspoken atheists more and more.

All of these pieces of evidence are circumstantial, but they point to an erosion of faith in some of the biggest Muslim strongholds.

Wait.... stop right there. Historically the word "atheist" has mostly been a pejorative. It just means people with a warped and bad moral sense, rather than anything deep or philosofical. Just replace it with the word "evil" and it makes more sense. There's no need to feel targetted by these people even if you are an atheist. Many, if not most theists use the term atheist wrongly, and in the above fashion. So the fact that people are talking about the evils of atheism doesn't really mean anything on what they feel about actual atheism.

Many people in religious comunities find the notion that people can find good moral values on their own inconceivable. Becuase they have been spoonfed all their lives that religion is necessary for morals. That's all this means. Once actual out an open atheists start appearing in their communities... yes, their will be... then this entire problem will go away super fast. Also.. faster than in Europe. Because when atheism started to take hold here there were no atheist communities anywhere. Now there are, and we have Internet today.

Even in that sense, Muslims would not be using that word more often unless they were becoming increasingly distressed about atheists.

While this does not prove that atheism is growing in the Middle East, it certainly is circumstantial evidence suggesting that is what is happening. Combine that with the other pieces of evidence, and it sounds like ex-Muslim atheists are starting to have an impact, and the religious leaders are worried.

 

[JonA]

I truly believe that the Bible and Koran are two fully interchangeable books. How they're read is more important than what their texts say.

You've read them both, then?

 

[skepticalbip]

Wait.... stop right there. Historically the word "atheist" has mostly been a pejorative. It just means people with a warped and bad moral sense, rather than anything deep or philosofical. Just replace it with the word "evil" and it makes more sense. There's no need to feel targetted by these people even if you are an atheist. Many, if not most theists use the term atheist wrongly, and in the above fashion. So the fact that people are talking about the evils of atheism doesn't really mean anything on what they feel about actual atheism.

Many people in religious comunities find the notion that people can find good moral values on their own inconceivable. Becuase they have been spoonfed all their lives that religion is necessary for morals. That's all this means. Once actual out an open atheists start appearing in their communities... yes, their will be... then this entire problem will go away super fast. Also.. faster than in Europe. Because when atheism started to take hold here there were no atheist communities anywhere. Now there are, and we have Internet today.

Even in that sense, Muslims would not be using that word more often unless they were becoming increasingly distressed about atheists.

While this does not prove that atheism is growing in the Middle East, it certainly is circumstantial evidence suggesting that is what is happening. Combine that with the other pieces of evidence, and it sounds like ex-Muslim atheists are starting to have an impact, and the religious leaders are worried.

I suppose that is one way to interpret it. However, it could just as equally be that Islam is becoming more fundamentalist. Sorta like Christianity before the middle ages hardly ever mentioned heretics and witches but, as the church became more fundamentalist, they saw heretics and witches everywhere.

 

[DBT]

I truly believe that the Bible and Koran are two fully interchangeable books. How they're read is more important than what their texts say.

You've read them both, then?

Muhammad built his new religion on the foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

 

[Perspicuo]

You've read them both, then?

Muhammad built his new religion on the foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

It doesn't work that way. There are several important differences, and therefore it requires actualy reading the stuff. It's a real drag, though.

 

[JonA]

You've read them both, then?

Muhammad built his new religion on the foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

How does that answer my question?

 

[DBT]

How does that answer my question?

Muhammad built his new religion on the foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

It doesn't work that way. There are several important differences, and therefore it requires actualy reading the stuff. It's a real drag, though.

It doesn't work what way? It was a brief remark.

My assumption was that DrZoidberg was using a degree of rhetoric when he said ''I truly believe that the Bible and Koran are two fully interchangeable books'' and did not mean it to be taken literally, that the Bible and the Koran are literally interchangeable but in principle...hence my remark ''Muhammad built his new religion on the foundation of Judaism and Christianity'' - which is basically what happened. But of course it isn't the full story because Muhammad and his 'clergy' took material from a variety of sources, including medical literature from Galen. And of course, elements from his own tribal religion. But the basics are their, the prophets, Abraham, Moses, etc, culminating in Muhammad himself.

For example:

''The theological can be subdivided into five stages: (1) Muhammad’s efforts to develop and improve on Judaism; (2) Islam’s fulfillment of Judaism; (3) Jewish resistance, based on Muhammad’s deficient knowledge of the Torah and gentile status; (4) his change in prayer direction or qiblah; and (5) Muhammad’s riposte to this resistance. The political tension and ruptures that result in warfare and conquest will be discussed afterwards, but the theological and political differences and strife parallel each other.

(1) First, while Muhammad is settling down in Medina and his position there is insecure, he tries to convince the Jews that his revelations were the continuation of Judaism (and Christianity), the religion of the People of the Book or the Bible. Before he left Mecca, he faced Syria (i.e. Jerusalem) in prayer. The early Muslims in Medina may have observed the fast for the Day of Atonement, and their special Friday worship was a response to the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath from Friday evening to Saturday evening. Muhammad forbad the Muslims from eating the same food prohibited for Jews, namely, pork, blood, carrion, and meat sacrificed to idols (see Sura 2:172-173). It seems, then, that earliest Islam was the development and even improvement on the prior faith, Judaism, or so Muhammad believed.''

 

[DrZoidberg]

Muhammad built his new religion on the foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

How does that answer my question?

Religion has filled different usages in different times. It's not a goal oriented evolution. The main function of religion has always been to build communities. But these communities have had different usages in different times. Bronze age religion was evolving toward empire building, from building villages. Iron age religion was evolving toward nation building. It wasn't enough to be on the same side. You had to also be and think like me. That's why bronze age religions (Paganism, Judaism etc) don't give a fuck what you believe, only what you do. Iron age religions (Christianity, Islam) on the other hand, do care what you believe. This was a development that only became more extreme as time progressed, with it's apex 1930'ies. Religion after this, (ie post enlightenment religion). Religion now is a divine blanket or crutch to tell you that you too are valuable, even though you don't have a six pack or the latest iPhone. A radically different type of religion. This evolution of religion as primarily driven by technology. So religion is a symptom, rather than a source to the problem.

Islam is the way it is, in comparison to Christianity because it's further along on that time access toward more social control. But in practice, let's say 14'th century Christianity was just as oppressive as 14'th century Islam. If not more (because they were more affluent in the Islamic world).

 

[TSwizzle]

The BBC raise the topic;

An investigation for the BBC has found evidence of young people suffering threats, intimidation, being ostracised by their communities and, in some cases, encountering serious physical abuse when they told their families they were no longer Muslims.

BBC

 

[barbos]

Islam is the way it is, in comparison to Christianity because it's further along on that time access toward more social control. But in practice, let's say 14'th century Christianity was just as oppressive as 14'th century Islam. If not more (because they were more affluent in the Islamic world).

14'th century Christianity had an excuse - there were no internet, space satellites and most people could not read.

 

[bilby]

Islam is the way it is, in comparison to Christianity because it's further along on that time access toward more social control. But in practice, let's say 14'th century Christianity was just as oppressive as 14'th century Islam. If not more (because they were more affluent in the Islamic world).

14'th century Christianity had an excuse - there were no internet, space satellites and most people could not read.

20th century Islam has the same excuse. The Internet is not available in Arabic, and many Muslims think that education begins and ends with the reading and memorising of the Quran. When most people cannot read English, that is functionally equivalent to being illiterate with regards to the secular information in the world.

Even the French, Germans and Russians have to learn English if they want to become world class scientists or engineers; and the basic information is available in those languages, even if the cutting edge stuff is often not.

Perhaps if the US spent a few percent of their 'War on Terror' money on developing a really good English - Arabic translator that could be easily applied to any website, they might be surprised at how effective the results would be.

 

[TSwizzle]

20th century Islam has the same excuse. The Internet is not available in Arabic,

Most muslims are not Arab or Arab speaking beyond the quaran. And yet, muslims have easily mastered technology to further their aims as seen by the rather slick ISIS recruitment videos and the numerous snuff videos (beheading) that are exchanged between muslims. Doesn't al-q publish a monthly newsletter ?

 

[bilby]

20th century Islam has the same excuse. The Internet is not available in Arabic,

Most muslims are not Arab or Arab speaking beyond the quaran. And yet, muslims have easily mastered technology to further their aims as seen by the rather slick ISIS recruitment videos and the numerous snuff videos (beheading) that are exchanged between muslims. Doesn't al-q publish a monthly newsletter ?

Most Muslims don't speak English; many read Arabic, because reading the Quran in Arabic is one of the silly rules of their religion. It doesn't matter how much 'mastery' of technology you have, you still won't be able to read an English webpage if you can't read English.

What you are basically saying here is that the Islamic world has the ability to understand the material presented to them by Muslim extremists, but not the ability to comprehend the vast wealth of human knowledge that is currently available only in English.

Why you think that this rebuts my argument I cannot fathom. It seems to me to do exactly the opposite.

Imagine a world where almost everyone else speaks Arabic. The only English speakers are in the Bible Belt. How much information do you think English speakers would have access to about evolution in such a world?