Why are "progressives" so eager to defend Islam?

[Greatest I am]

A cute little ditty for sure, and what we should all be singing.

What is dumb is how we have bent over backwards for them, just to have them do what they are doing in return, and us letting them get away with their garbage.

Oh well. You can't expect that our governments will repeal the Noble Lie that religions are worthy of our respect.

If they went after Islam, the worst offender today, they fear they might have to go after Christianity when Islam shows all the shared characteristics in self defence.

Regards
DL

[brimstoneSalad]

I also have questions about Atheism. (How do you scientifically create something out of nothing?? )

Why is that an atheism question? Wouldn't that be a question for theists as well?

[...]
but scientist cannot explain how "matter" existed in the first place to be super condensed and lead to the BIg Bang.

σxσp≥ħ/2

[EquALLity]

Unchecked mass immigration of Muslims is a big step back, I think.

Indeed.

We already have enough ghettos and to spend more on new immigrants than we do on our present poor is insanity.

Especially given what Islam is in terms of a slave holding ideology.

The West fought against slavery and to allow it back in is insane and a disrespect to those who died to rid the West of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq_lhlIn1e0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZZlo0WZ_iU&feature=youtu.be

Regards
DL

"The west fought against slavery"
Hmmmm, yes. But for many years, the west was the driving force behind the Atlantic Slave Trade, slavery to the extent that the world had previously never seen. It's kind of disingenuous to leave that out.

There have also been civilizations that outlawed slavery and were peaceful and religiously tolerant while the west was aggressively expanding throughout the world and persecuting minorities.

To single out Islam is pretty bizarre when the Bible has specific code for how to treat slaves.
And how is Islam bringing slavery anyway?

A lot of the issues with Muslims today involving violence and extremism ARE heavily cultural (heavily not completely). I say this because Islamic countries and beliefs held by Muslims have changed a lot throughout history. The religious text itself doesn't change, just the interpretation, as societies evolve over time. The interpretations evolve with culture.
Islamic extremism rises when Muslims feel they are being persecuted. It's like how nationalsm rises while countries are occupied. Losing your self-rule makes people unify against an oppressor. Take how Al Qaeda formed -
During the Cold War, the Soviet backed communists in Afghanistan took power. They made the government secular quickly, and Afghans saw them as against the traditional culture due to the Soviet influence. This angered a lot of Afghans, and an Islamic nationalist group called the Mujahideen rose in opposition. Because the US was trying to contain communism everywhere blindly, they gave weapons and training to this group and helped them take control. They became Al-Qaeda.

A lot of the reason for fighting between the groups is also due to ethnic tensions. Europeans redrew the Middle East to exploit it economically, forcing many diverse and conflicting peoples together. There are still many tensions today due to this.

Islam is a factor, because it can be used to support violent and terrible things (or good things, it depends on where you look it the Qu'ran), but it's not that black and white.

[PsYcHo]

Why is that an atheism question? Wouldn't that be a question for theists as well?

[...]
but scientist cannot explain how "matter" existed in the first place to be super condensed and lead to the BIg Bang.

σxσp≥ħ/2

Two points here Brim-

1- Dumb it down for those of us not fully versed in theoretical physics.

2. I'm not sure what that equation means (assuming it is an equations, and you haven't merely fallen on the keyboard in exasperation ), but I'm willing to bet it is still regarded as a "theory", with persons smarter than I debating it.

I may be getting my facts wrong, but didn't Einstein himself second-guess one of his own theories?

[brimstoneSalad]

1- Dumb it down for those of us not fully versed in theoretical physics.

It's the uncertainty principle. One of the foundations of quantum physics.

2. I'm not sure what that equation means (assuming it is an equations, and you haven't merely fallen on the keyboard in exasperation ), but I'm willing to bet it is still regarded as a "theory", with persons smarter than I debating it.

Image search "just a theory", you'll find some good memes.

It's a theory in the way gravity is. I don't think it's really been controversial for over 50 years, and it has been experimentally verified more ways than I can count.
It also applies whether you subscribe to Copenhagen or MWI.

I may be getting my facts wrong, but didn't Einstein himself second-guess one of his own theories?

Einstein actually contested this theory specifically (which wasn't his), but he was wrong. In my view, this was probably Einstein's true "biggest blunder", but he didn't live to be convinced of it. Since that time it has been overwhelmingly proved (in so far as anything can be) through demonstration of the wave nature of particles in numerous experiments.

You may find this interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Critical_reactions

Asking how the universe came to be from nothing (or suggesting it might be a matter of faith to say it has) is almost like asking how a rock came to be at the bottom of the mountain rather than the top; while the details of its travel from top to bottom may be up for debate (which path it rolled down), it was pretty much an inevitability and we don't wonder what ultimately powered its descent.

[PsYcHo]

Asking how the universe came to be from nothing (or suggesting it might be a matter of faith to say it has) is almost like asking how a rock came to be at the bottom of the mountain rather than the top; while the details of its travel from top to bottom may be up for debate (which path it rolled down), it was pretty much an inevitability and we don't wonder what ultimately powered its descent.

In reference to the highlighted point- I truly hope that you are not implying that I may be suggesting that theists are correct in their assumptions of the creation of the universe.

But my own lack of a belief system, is in itself, a belief system. Just as I often challenge theists to question their own beliefs, I feel it is only appropriate that those of us lacking in religious beliefs question ourselves as well.

If we (atheist) just "accept that the rock was at the top of the mountain", isn't that the same as theists accepting that "in the beginning"?

[brimstoneSalad]

In reference to the highlighted point- I truly hope that you are not implying that I may be suggesting that theists are correct in their assumptions of the creation of the universe.

The implication seems to be that they're equal, or that one is not better than the other.

But my own lack of a belief system, is in itself, a belief system.

Is there a hobby of not collecting stamps?

The burden of proof lies on those making claims. For agnostic atheists making no claims about the existence of god, they don't really have a requirement to pony up evidence for something they didn't assert.

If we (atheist) just "accept that the rock was at the top of the mountain", isn't that the same as theists accepting that "in the beginning"?

Not really, because we've seen rocks at the tops of mountains before. And it's not saying it *must* be that way, only that it's the most probable. It could have come from a different mountain and have been trucked over, but that's a more elaborate assumption (see Occam's razor) which would not be preferred. It is not to claim definitively that such a thing did not happen, just that it's less probable and a more unnecessarily complex explanation.

[Greatest I am]

[

Islam is a factor, because it can be used to support violent and terrible things (or good things, it depends on where you look it the Qu'ran), but it's not that black and white.

Yes it is.

Both Christianity and Islam have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I.

Regards
DL

[PsYcHo]

In reference to the highlighted point- I truly hope that you are not implying that I may be suggesting that theists are correct in their assumptions of the creation of the universe.

The implication seems to be that they're equal, or that one is not better than the other.

Hmm. Why would it be so bad if they were equal. After all, if either side had definitive proof, this entire thread would be moot, correct?

But my own lack of a belief system, is in itself, a belief system.

Is there a hobby of not collecting stamps?

We're not talking about hobbies. We're discussing beliefs. Whether or not I or you collect stamps, we can both determine with a modest amount of effort that stamps actually exist. GOD is not such an easily provable/disprovable medium.

If we (atheist) just "accept that the rock was at the top of the mountain", isn't that the same as theists accepting that "in the beginning"?

Not really, because we've seen rocks at the tops of mountains before. And it's not saying it *must* be that way, only that it's the most probable. It could have come from a different mountain and have been trucked over, but that's a more elaborate assumption (see Occam's razor) which would not be preferred. It is not to claim definitively that such a thing did not happen, just that it's less probable and a more unnecessarily complex explanation.

.... I'm definitely familiar with Occam's razor, and in that line of reasoning,

Rocks exist because the universe exist.

Matter can only be modified, not created from nothing.

Using Occam's razor, since matter cannot be created from nothing, there are two possible explanations. 1- Matter has always been here (that doesn't make sense.) 2- Matter was created (that...also doesn't make sense..)

[brimstoneSalad]

Hmm. Why would it be so bad if they were equal. After all, if either side had definitive proof, this entire thread would be moot, correct?

Most atheists merely assert "we don't know", while most theists assert "God did it!".
In this case, there's a clear inequality; one is making quite the claim without evidence.
What's more, they have very specific claims about the kind of god that did...

It's very rare to find somebody well enough versed in quantum physics and cosmology for him or her to say he or she has a pretty good idea of how it did happen.
Lawrence Krauss is one; I'd encourage you to listen to some of his talks (if I haven't already).

We're not talking about hobbies. We're discussing beliefs.

Most atheists are not making any assertion, they simply lack the belief or are unconvinced.
"I am not persuaded by your claims about god" is a pretty defensible claim.

Whether or not I or you collect stamps, we can both determine with a modest amount of effort that stamps actually exist.

Not really, when you understand claims about "god" don't follow the rules and are generally unfalsifiable except by logic.

Let me give you an example in the negative:
"Stamps don't exist, they just appear to exist, they're actually illusions"

You could answer that, and I could keep making up explanations for whatever test you throw at them.
That's how religion works.

GOD is not such an easily provable/disprovable medium.

Much more so, actually, because it exists in the domain of philosophy. It's just disproved with logic, by showing contradictions in its nature.

.... I'm definitely familiar with Occam's razor, and in that line of reasoning,

Rocks exist because the universe exist.

They are part of the universe.

Let me simplify it, compare these two claims:

1. The universe just exists.
2. The universe exists. God made the universe. God just exists.

Which is simpler?
The second adds no explanatory power because it just creates more questions, and makes more assumptions.

Matter can only be modified, not created from nothing.

That's not what physics claims.
The claim is with respect to energy, but only applies to non-quantum systems.

since matter cannot be created from nothing, there are two possible explanations. 1- Matter has always been here (that doesn't make sense.) 2- Matter was created (that...also doesn't make sense..)

Good thing the first claim isn't true.