Photography is a Sin, According to India’s Leading Islamic Seminary

[Retrotech68]

The bottom line is that whether the adherents are Amish, Islamic or of another religious practice, they are attempting to impose their religious beliefs and practices on others who do not adhere to their faith.

No person has a right to attempt to impose the code of their religion on others who do not adhere to it, or to make demands that go against the customs and laws of the nation which is hosting them. There is just no way around that fact.

Absolutely true. Unfortunately, I think the number of religious extremists is on the rise everywhere, and I mean also in the "West", not just in the Middle East or elsewhere.

I spent most of August in a big South American nation, travelling around in the countryside. Afterwards, I spent some 12 days in a big city. While Ok for most of the time, I ended up being harassed by the local version of the born-again Christian loonie, to use Roger's expression. It was quite annoying, to the point that I had to be quite firm (not unpolite though) in order to keep them at bay (basically, a friend of a friend of a local associate of mine tried to talk me out of my wicked ways). Besides, I didn't search for anything close to a religion vs. reason argument or anything like that. The same person also tried to proselytise a Catholic who was enjoying his lunch quietly at our side...
Fortunately, I was quickly classified as an "unsaveable sinner"... 😎
Alex

 

[hepcat]

Precisely. Sane people don't get the same coverage.

Cheers,

R.

The Internet is the new Colt Revolver. It makes all people equal. In fact, it can make insignificant people loud and obnoxious and minimize those who should be heard.

And now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go make devotions at the altar of Mssrs. Ernst and Oskar.

🙂

 

[Retrotech68]

To wrap this discussion up, my opinion, is, that humanity is more than ready to turn the page on religions. There is enough evidence, that reason and scientific method provide better guidance, and the fostering of cognitive abilities of humans is the only way forward, as collective problems will have to be tackled globally on basis of common ground consensus. The most reliable cognitive models are based on rational thinking, and the consensus can only be reached on this ground.
We will not be able to decide on anything, if we continue to behave on basis of (different) assumptions produced out of thin air.

I fully agree. Unfortunately, that is not the case with a large percentage of humanity.

Alex

 

[Tejasican]

The problem with discussion of religion is those not in a faith haven't usually looked closely enough to even begin to understand it and those who are adherents and even some clergy, sad to say, are not much ahead of that. For example, Christian fundamentalists, including the liberal ones as well, routinely ignore the principle that Scripture cannot contradict. When they take passage A and interpret it such that it contradicts passage B then something in their understanding is amiss. One passage may temper the other, or may mean something entirely different that they might have thought when taken in its context. Add that to a problem (mainly in the modern West) with leaving certain things a mystery that we cannot fully comprehend (the nature of Christ in the Eucharist, for example) and you have a recipe for real problems.

A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing and misconceptions, shoddy scholarship, and rumor abound making getting to the root of things difficult.

That said, I have had to deal with lives messed up by the secular methodologies and find that many secular people and their methods take on the shape of a form of religious devotion, as illogically and unreasoningly adhered to as that of the most rabid extreme Islamist fundamentalist. Once a secular dogma is "established" all other evidence is routinely and harshly dismissed. Heretics are burned if not bodily then at least professionally and socially. A godless fundamentalist can be the equal of a religious one any given day. and the messes they make of lives and society just as disastrous.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . That said, I have had to deal with lives messed up by the secular methodologies and find that many secular people and their methods take on the shape of a form of religious devotion, as illogically and unreasoningly adhered to as that of the most rabid extreme Islamist fundamentalist. Once a secular dogma is "established" all other evidence is routinely and harshly dismissed. Heretics are burned if not bodily then at least professionally and socially. A godless fundamentalist can be the equal of a religious one any given day. and the messes they make of lives and society just as disastrous.

If it's not too much trouble, could you furnish an example or two? I'm not denying your experience: I'm just having some difficulty in imagining how this could happen. Are we talking about secularism here, or about common bigotry and stupidity?

Cheers,

R.

 

[DominikDUK]

Only shows what some clerics know he is partly right in islam the depiction of living things is not really allowed especially depiction of the prophet, the depiction of dead things is allowed though so as long as you photograph a rock you are free of sin. 😀

 

[noisycheese]

The problem with discussion of religion is those not in a faith haven't usually looked closely enough to even begin to understand it and those who are adherents and even some clergy, sad to say, are not much ahead of that. For example, Christian fundamentalists, including the liberal ones as well, routinely ignore the principle that Scripture cannot contradict. When they take passage A and interpret it such that it contradicts passage B then something in their understanding is amiss. One passage may temper the other, or may mean something entirely different that they might have thought when taken in its context. Add that to a problem (mainly in the modern West) with leaving certain things a mystery that we cannot fully comprehend (the nature of Christ in the Eucharist, for example) and you have a recipe for real problems.

A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing and misconceptions, shoddy scholarship, and rumor abound making getting to the root of things difficult.

That said, I have had to deal with lives messed up by the secular methodologies and find that many secular people and their methods take on the shape of a form of religious devotion, as illogically and unreasoningly adhered to as that of the most rabid extreme Islamist fundamentalist. Once a secular dogma is "established" all other evidence is routinely and harshly dismissed. Heretics are burned if not bodily then at least professionally and socially. A godless fundamentalist can be the equal of a religious one any given day. and the messes they make of lives and society just as disastrous.

You are 100% correct.

The problem lies with those who have determined that they are intellectually and/or morally superior to the rest of us and are determined that come hell or high water, the rest of us will by God submit to their supposedly "enlightened" and "superior" minds and do as we are told for our own good.

Someone once said the nine most terrifying words in the english language are

"I'm from the government. I'm here to help you."

I think you could also insert the word "church" or "university" in place of the word "government" and not be too far off in the ditch.

As someone else correctly observed, extremism seems to be on the rise these days. Extremism cuts across all demographics. We have religious extremists of nearly every religious stripe; we have intellectual extremists; we have political extremists - again, of every stripe. The one thing they all have in common is an unquenchable thirst for power and control over other people - and therein lies the problem.

As for me, I have no interest in living in a county/state/nation/world where everything not prohibited is compulsory.

 

[DominikDUK]

If it's not too much trouble, could you furnish an example or two? I'm not denying your experience: I'm just having some difficulty in imagining how this could happen. Are we talking about secularism here, or about common bigotry and stupidity?

Cheers,

R.

Take a look at Dawkins his hate toward religion and his claim about the infallibility of science borders religious zealotism. I also often work with scientists and they often view science as infallible and anyone who dares to say something against science as heretics that need to be destroyed. About a year ago there was a climate scientists who stated that anyone who did not believe in climate change should receive the death penalty this statement went trough the Austrian Media just a year ago. BTW I am an atheist but I still accept that people believe in god or teakettles and maybe they are right. 😀

 

[EdwardKaraa]

The problem I have with the above comparisons is that fundamentally, Christianity is a religion of peace and tolerance, and any crimes that were committed in its name were essentially religious zealotism that is contrary to the teachings of the religion. Unfortunately the opposite is true about the teachings of Islam. I'm also a tolerant atheist by the way.

The Pope can shout his lungs out about the ban of condoms, but as far as I know, no one got beheaded so far for the use of condoms.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Take a look at Dawkins his hate toward religion and his claim about the infallibility of science borders religious zealotism. I also often work with scientists and they often view science as infallible and anyone who dares to say something against science as heretics that need to be destroyed. About a year ago there was a climate scientists who stated that anyone who did not believe in climate change should receive the death penalty this statement went to the Austrian Media just a year ago. BTW I am an atheist but I still accept that people believe in god or teakettles and maybe they are right. 😀

First highlight: no, pointing out that there is absolutely no rational basis for something is not what I would regard as zealotry. Stridency, yes; but a zealot normally insists on belief, not rational thought. Dawkins does not ask you to believe anything.

Second highlight: infallibility is inconsistent with science, so any scientist who thinks that science is infallible isn't a very good scientist. Science consists of trying to explain things as well as possible, always with the possibility that there is more to be learned. Admittedly there are some things where the theories are unlikely to be greatly improved upon, but it's only "unlikely", not "impossible". Who were these "scientists" who said that "anyone who did not believe in climate change should receive the death penalty"?

Cheers,

R.

 

[mwoenv]

Good, another sinful way to add to my list. Not a Muslim but I'll take it. If you can't enjoy some sin, what's the point?

 

[EdwardKaraa]

I was raised a Presbyterian, went to church and bible study for 15 years, I must have gotten a different copy of the "manual" than you did.

The manual is out there for all to read and even with different translations, the message remains the same. I'm totally against turning the left cheek, but this is the most fundamental idea behind it. I don't know what the Presbytarians are teaching you, I was born and raised as a Catholic.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

Uh, there's been an update to the news article in the first post apparently...

 

[DominikDUK]

First highlight: no, pointing out that there is absolutely no rational basis for something is not what I would regard as zealotry. Stridency, yes; but a zealot normally insists on belief, not rational thought. Dawkins does not ask you to believe anything.

Second highlight: infallibility is inconsistent with science, so any scientist who thinks that science is infallible isn't a very good scientist. Science consists of trying to explain things as well as possible, always with the possibility that there is more to be learned. Admittedly there are some things where the theories are unlikely to be greatly improved upon, but it's only "unlikely", not "impossible". Who were these "scientists" who said that "anyone who did not believe in climate change should receive the death penalty"?

Cheers,

R.

Roger I never said they were good scientists religious zealots are also rarely if ever good christians, muslims, jews, hindu, buddhists, etc...
And Dawkins is very much intolerant towards others and that's an opinion I share with many scientists that do accept religions and do not call them madness. Furthermore many more people have been killed in the name of advancement and secularism than in the name of religion e.g. Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao and many more.Terrorists killing in the name of Islam or any other religion use it as an excuse for killing despite the fact that their religion forbids it that includes islam a muslim killing a muslim, jew or christian in name of islam is a sinner.

 

[robbiechad]

Seems to me that most religious texts are works of fiction.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

 

[tunalegs]

Second highlight: infallibility is inconsistent with science, so any scientist who thinks that science is infallible isn't a very good scientist. Science consists of trying to explain things as well as possible, always with the possibility that there is more to be learned. Admittedly there are some things where the theories are unlikely to be greatly improved upon, but it's only "unlikely", not "impossible".

Unfortunately because of this some dim people also like to go "see the facts change! - how can this be if science is true?" 😀

Some people think that everything there is to know about the universe can found in a book or two, so the idea that we actually know very little, and are finding out new things all the time is very frightening to them. I think this sort of fear is what causes some people to act as though "scientific fact" is infallible - forgetting of course that if this were the case there wouldn't have been much scientific progress over the past few centuries, and it'd still be a fact that the planets orbit the Earth in epicycles.

 

[Tejasican]

If it's not too much trouble, could you furnish an example or two? I'm not denying your experience: I'm just having some difficulty in imagining how this could happen. Are we talking about secularism here, or about common bigotry and stupidity?

Cheers,

R.

I'm afraid I cannot, as they were counseling situations that I am not free to elaborate on in any detail. If I can figure a way to relate without relating then I may be back to take a stab at it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm afraid I cannot, as they were counseling situations that I am not free to elaborate on in any detail. If I can figure a way to relate without relating then I may be back to take a stab at it.

I feared that might be the case, but thanks anyway. If you can work out a way, without too much effort, I'd be grateful but I'll understand if you can't.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Tejasican]

Truth be it illuminated by Scripture or science is in itself infallible - it is what it is - whereas our vision, understanding, interpretation, and application of those things is anything but and is subject to every prejudice, desire, and foible which we can bring to the table. Our arrogance and downfall is often in the confusion of the two.