Has Islam lead to an increase in Atheism?

by nicolaou 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AlanF

  I don't think that Islam has caused an increase in atheism, but that the actions of certain extremists have caused many people to be a good deal more vocal about their atheism.

  I agree with you, HS, that religions ought to be licensed in the same way that most other social organizations are. This is entirely in line with the thinking of people like Dawkins and Harris, who argue that there is no logical reason that religions or religious belief ought to be treated specially. The only reason they are is historical.

  AlanF
• 

  frankiespeakin

  HS,

  I believe that a sensible solution would be for religions to be licensed by the Government to ensure that they do no harm to its citizens.

  Haveing governments give out or revoke a license to religion in order to protect it citizen, is a two egde sword. It encroaches on religious freedom and the wise seperation of church and state. It also makes the state a censure of religion. The government already have too much control of our personal lives, giving it more control is a bad idea, and reminds me of G Orwell's "!984"
• 

  done4good

  To answer the question, yes. Islam, (as well as any extreme form of religion, including jw), has led to an increase in atheism. When people are forced to think about the horrible effects of blindly following any belief system, this will almost always lead to an awakening.

  Having been in the US and Europe, I'd say disenfranchisement of minority communities, lack of integration by minority communities, lack of equallity for members of minority communities and the violence and trouble that thi all causes are FAR worse in the USA

  To a degree, I agree with the above statement. However, only to the extent that many European countries, (and Canada, also), have better social systems in place to support the disadvantaged. In the USA, it is still easier to really become succussful, (in the monetary sense), if one takes the initiative. That said, the Muslim community here often are better educated, have better jobs, own businesses, etc, than they are in Europe. They don't want Sharia law, and they don't fly airplanes into buildings. This is why we see less in the way of terror cells in the USA. Of couse, the USA is the country at greatest risk for an event such as 9/11, because the US is still viewed as the capital of western thought by extreme Muslims.

  j
• 

  Caedes

  I quite like HS' mental health and safety controls, a great idea as long as it was only in place to control cult conditioning and mental cruelty, I have no problem with religions teaching crackpot ideas as long as the members aren't hurt physically or mentally. I feel that life would be somehow less interesting without yec people to laugh at.

  Although I also think that religion should lose its charity status and they should all pay tax.

  I would say that religous extremism will always lead to an increase in secularism...eventually, but I don't think it is inevitable. Every civilisation so far has collapsed so I think it is niave to assume this one is immune to the possibility. Religous extremism could well play push society towards collapse if it is not held in check somehow.

  In short I doubt that Islam and its many problems increase atheism because I doubt that the actions of a religous group can swing whole groups of people to question the existance of gods, individually perhaps they can.
• 

  metatron

  In regard to Europe and the US and Muslims, I think it may be premature to make a judgement that

  Europe handles these issues better. If the number of terrorist incidents continues in Europe, you could

  end up with worse effects in total than 911.

  European social systems - while outwardly superior to the US - may create paradoxical outcomes.

  Muslims have been openly taught that "infidels" owe them tribute. Some Imans plainly teach

  "dhimmi -tude" in regard to welfare payments - the unbelievers owe you this. You might want to

  consider this outlook and contrast it with the pride of achievement that has traditionally emerged

  as immigrants struggle to make it in the US. This sort of conclusion is quietly being discussed

  by authorities in Europe ( and more neutral observers like the Christian Science Monitor)

  On the other hand, the educational level of most Muslim immigrants in the US is higher and there's

  a lot of medical people who come here., likely with different motivations than others going to other

  nations - but then there's the paradox of many Muslim terrorists being well-educated, more so than

  their followers. Atlantic magazine published interviews with some who complained that "they felt

  like nothing" in Western society. If you have an atheist bent, you might consider a sort of egotistic

  expectation that fanatical religion can encourage. I'm one of God's chosen, so why do these infidels

  around me prosper?

  I read that the name "Mohammed" will soon be the most popular name for baby boys in England.

  Buena Suerte, with that.

  metatron
• 

  hillary_step

  Frankie,

  Haveing governments give out or revoke a license to religion in order to protect it citizen, is a two egde sword. It encroaches on religious freedom and the wise seperation of church and state. It also makes the state a censure of religion. The government already have too much control of our personal lives, giving it more control is a bad idea, and reminds me of G Orwell's "!984".

  I find this attitude quite puzzling.

  The Government's of most countries has control of every private and public organization in existence. It controls these bodies with the use of licenses, laws and regulations. It does so to protect the interests and welfare of its citizens. While we may grumble about some of these measures, we do not oppose them as we recognize that they are set up for our benefit.

  Why should regulations on religion be exempted from this umbrella of protection? Why would regulating religion for the protection of its adherents be so different from that which occurs with every other organized body?

  Example :

  A herbalist decides that he has discovered a cure for cancer in the fermented leaves of the African Pansy and begins to tout his goods on the open market without a license. The FDA bans its use until the potion has been properly tested, its claims justified, and a license issued. All this for the sake of US citizens, and we are very thankful for this. To make unjustified claims and marketing such items to a very desperate part of society is rightly seen as criminal.

  A religion claims to have exclusive rights to worship God and that those following their teachings would not only have everlasting life but their health would be improved, they would be able to throw away their crutches and that their cancers would go into remission if they attended all their religious meetings and gave over 10% of their income. This body is making an unjustified claim and marketing it to a very desperate part of society. This is not viewed as criminal, it is viewed as exercising ones right to worship in any way one sees fit.

  Why should one body rightly be licensed, and the other who are making even greater claims not be?

  Best regards - HS
• 

  AlanF

  Hillary_Step wrote:

  : Why should one body rightly be licensed, and the other who are making even greater claims not be?

  Exactly. Religious freedom should be protected, I agree, but only to the degree that one person's religious freedom does not encroach on the general rights of anyone else. Crimes such as murder are not (or at least, should not) be protected under the umbrella of religious freedom. Nor should any conduct that defrauds people.

  Of course, religion by and large is fraudulent by its very nature, so that certainly raises some interesting questions about how much it ought to be controlled.

  AlanF
• 

  nicolaou

  Of course, religion by and large is fraudulent by its very nature, so that certainly raises some interesting questions about how much it ought to be controlled.

  One could argue that the situation at present is even worse than a simple lack of control over religion. Faith is protected, given charitable status, tax breaks, discounted business rates on property and so on. Faith leaders are given space to promulgate their views on publicly funded national media ('Thought for the Day' anyone?)

  Alan's earlier comment was spot on; "the actions of certain extremists have caused many people to be a good deal more vocal about their atheism". The debate has been truly engaged and is at times ferocious, who knows where it will lead?

  I think that the removal of automatic charitable status from religious institutions is a realistic prospect within the next ten years.
• 

  metatron

  The greatest offense in this is that tax dollars subsidize religions like the organization. Before anyone

  talks about licenses, for Pete's sake make them pay their full share of taxes.

  metatron
• 

  hillary_step

  Metatron,

  The greatest offense in this is that tax dollars subsidize religions like the organization. Before anyone talks about licenses, for Pete's sake make them pay their full share of taxes.

  Yes, that religions be taxed, at least the non-charitable part of their operations, is implicit in the demands that they be treated like every other organized body. Secular not-for-profit organizations are not taxed, so this particular, identifiable element of a religious body should not be unfairly taxed.

  HS