Religion, what's the point?

[shamans]

The man ordered offensive operations against the Quraysh and their allies, leading to the conquest of their land. That’s being aggressive.

The land they were expelled from? Where they had homes? That they took back? That's the wrong example. Probably can find other examples of aggression but this one doesn't fit.

 

[shamans]

How many of them claim to be the prophet of the one true god at the same time?

Edit: and for that matter, how many of them could do so and remain in office and not be committed to a psych ward?

I don't think it matters what people chose to define but why use the term "warlord" if this was common back in the day? The term has a negative connotation in the current world as a tyrant or someone who has muscled their way to power only by brutality and force.

If the definition is anyone who has engaged in aggressive battles it's going to be tough to find historical figures that aren't warlords.

 

[Carolina Red]

The land they were expelled from? Where they had homes? That they took back? That's the wrong example. Probably can find other examples of aggression but this one doesn't fit.

After they found a new city that welcomed them.

I don't think it matters what people chose to define but why use the term "warlord" if this was common back in the day? The term has a negative connotation in the current world as a tyrant or someone who has muscled their way to power only by brutality and force.

If the definition is anyone who has engaged in aggressive battles it's going to be tough to find historical figures that aren't warlords.

Because that’s part of who he was. No need to sugar coat it.

 

[shamans]

After they found a new city that welcomed them.

Because that’s part of who he was. No need to sugar coat it.

So part war lord? I don't think it's a matter of sugar coating. Just accuracy. Historically speaking, it doesn't sound accurate given the history we know if it is all authentic that is. I am not sure I understand the point about new city welcoming someone. Does that mean you lost your claim on your own house and land that you got expelled from?

 

[Carolina Red]

So part war lord? I don't think it's a matter of sugar coating. Just accuracy. Historically speaking, it doesn't sound accurate given the history we know if it is all authentic that is. I am not sure I understand the point about new city welcoming someone. Does that mean you lost your claim on your own house and land that you got expelled from?

Yes, part warlord. It isn’t the only thing he did.

The point about finding a welcoming place to live is that they had a choice of what to do from there… and Muhammad, hearing new verses from that voice in his head, choose violence against Mecca.

 

[shamans]

Yes, part warlord. It isn’t the only thing he did.

The point about finding a welcoming place to live is that they had a choice of what to do from there… and Muhammad, hearing new verses from that voice in his head, choose violence against Mecca.

Again, a very odd example to use. The conquest of Mecca is often used by Muslims as an example of forgiveness and compassion in Islam. Quick google from an Islamic source.

https://icliny.org/the-conquest-of-makkah-pearls-of-guidance-juz-26/

When the Prophet Muhammad and the Muslims entered the area of the Kaba, he announced clemency for everyone in Mecca who no longer wished to fight the Muslims: This day no reproach shall be on you. God will forgive you; He is the Most Merciful of the Merciful. You can go away! Many of the Meccans, who were expecting some sort of punishment, were surprised by the Prophet’s statement and some decided to become Muslim. Thus, the conquest of Mecca was bloodless and ended years of warfare and violence between Quraysh and the Muslims.

At least you could have used a more controversial example...

 

[2mufc0]

Yes, part warlord. It isn’t the only thing he did.

The point about finding a welcoming place to live is that they had a choice of what to do from there…

The Meccan's attacked Medina 3 times following the migration (badr, uhud and ahzab/khandaq), there's little choice but to get into a scrap. Not like they were left alone after migrating.

 

[shamans]

And regarding "caravan raids", according to history these were caravans that carried the goods of Meccan's who had been expelled from their houses being traded without their presence. It's like you get kicked out of your house, I start trading your belongings and you can't attack me for it or else you are the aggressor? Make of that what you will.

 

[2mufc0]

Again, a very odd example to use. The conquest of Mecca is often used by Muslims as an example of forgiveness and compassion in Islam. Quick google from an Islamic source.

https://icliny.org/the-conquest-of-makkah-pearls-of-guidance-juz-26/


At least you could have used a more controversial example...

Treaty of Hudaybiyyah is another example of preference of diplomacy over violence.

 

[Carolina Red]

Again, a very odd example to use. The conquest of Mecca is often used by Muslims as an example of forgiveness and compassion in Islam. Quick google from an Islamic source.

https://icliny.org/the-conquest-of-makkah-pearls-of-guidance-juz-26/


At least you could have used a more controversial example...

Bud, Muslims also think that the voice in Muhammad’s head was actually god talking to him, and I definitely do not, so I don’t know why you’d think that would be a convincing argument to me.

The Meccan's attacked Medina 3 times following the migration (badr, uhud and ahzab/khandaq), there's little choice but to get into a scrap. Not like they were left alone after migrating.

And what had Muhammad and his followers been doing in the year or so leading up to Badr?

 

[2mufc0]

And what had Muhammad and his followers been doing in the year or so leading up to Badr?

Reclamation, you should know this.

 

[shamans]

Bud, Muslims also think that the voice in Muhammad’s head was actually god talking to him, and I definitely do not, so I don’t know why you’d think that would be a convincing argument to me.

And what had Muhammad and his followers been doing in the year or so leading up to Badr?

Now that's deflecting. You are, after all, using the same sources of these crazy Muslims to claim who is and isn't a war lord (there is actually little to no documents from western non Muslims perspective of early Islam). If you're going to pick and chose, at lease say so.

Even if you are going to pick and chose, where exactly did you see the conquest of Mecca to be an act of "violence"? Think that would explain a thing or two.

 

[Carolina Red]

Reclamation, you should know this.

I do. That’s why I asked the rhetorical question.

 

[Carolina Red]

Now that's deflecting. You are, after all, using the same sources of these crazy Muslims to claim who is and isn't a war lord (there is actually little to no documents from western non Muslims perspective of early Islam). If you're going to pick and choose, at lease say so.

Even if you are going to pick and chose, where exactly did you see the conquest of Mecca to be an act of "violence"? Think that would explain a thing or two.

It isn’t deflecting. I’m taking from the sources that events happened, but I don’t care about the theological significance that they place on those events.

As to the 2nd question…
The whole war thing that the conquest was part of. That was pretty violent.

 

[shamans]

It isn’t deflecting. I’m taking from the sources that events happened, but I don’t care about the theological significance that they place on those events.

As to the 2nd question…
The whole war thing that the conquest was part of. That was pretty violent.

Right but I talked about events of the conquest of Mecca and your response to that was why believe what Muslims believe. I didn't say God placed him in Mecca divinely and made it Islamic, but historically it was a peaceful conquest. Bitter enemies were forgiven and its celebrated as a day of forgiveness.

The conquest was the only war of "aggression" towards Mecca. All other clashes with the Meccans were defensive. Again, this is what the available history tells us. I can't confirm it's accuracy.

 

[Carolina Red]

Right but I talked about events of the conquest of Mecca and your response to that was why believe what Muslims believe. I didn't say God placed him in Mecca divinely and made it Islamic, but historically it was a peaceful conquest. Bitter enemies were forgiven and its celebrated as a day of forgiveness.

The conquest was the only war of "aggression" towards Mecca. All other clashes with the Meccans were defensive. Again, this is what the available history tells us. I can't confirm it's accuracy.

If you mean specifically the surrender of the city of Mecca, then sure. It appears it was bloodless.

When I say “the conquest of Mecca”, I mean the military campaign that led to its surrender, not it’s white flag moment… has there been a formal name given to this period of warfare that should be used instead?

 

[shamans]

If you mean specifically the surrender of the city of Mecca, then sure. It appears it was bloodless.

When I say “the conquest of Mecca”, I mean the military campaign that led to its surrender, not it’s white flag moment… has there been a formal name given to this period of warfare that should be used instead?

The warfare the led to Mecca can hardly be considered aggressive. It is recorded as 3 defensive wars and finally a conquest. You might be mixing other battles in.

 

[RedTiger]

Bud, Muslims also think that the voice in Muhammad’s head was actually god talking to him, and I definitely do not, so I don’t know why you’d think that would be a convincing argument to me.

The "voice" was arc Angel Gabriel, a small detail but important for Muslims, aside from that I fully understand your position.

 

[Carolina Red]

The warfare the led to Mecca can hardly be considered aggressive. It is recorded as 3 defensive wars and finally a conquest. You might be mixing other battles in.

@nimic - here we are again. Defensively conquering land & cities.

 

[Carolina Red]

The "voice" was arc Angel Gabriel, a small detail but important for Muslims, aside from that I fully understand your position.

Yes, sorry… Gabriel, speaking for god.

But indeed, either way, I seriously doubt the source of that voice in his head. Ditto that for all the other Abrahamic prophets.

 

[RedTiger]

Yes, sorry… Gabriel, speaking for god.

But indeed, either way, I seriously doubt the source of that voice in his head. Ditto that for all the other Abrahamic prophets.

Are you completely atheist? As in 100% non belief in a creator outside of this creation?

 

[Carolina Red]

Are you completely atheist? As in 100% non belief in a creator outside of this creation?

I am a self described atheist, yes.

 

[Moby]

Some atheists believe a religious person should be 100% pacifist otherwise they must be hypocrites. We could ask the Moriori people (one of the few truely pacifist human communities)of the Chatham Islands what they think, unfortunately they no longer exist because they didn't defend themselves.

As per some religions they "ascended" into some heavenly realm getting rid of the pain and suffering of this world and ending the cycle of birth and death, and so being pacifist actually helped them achieve the true goal of their faith. Continuing to exist in the physical manifestation of human beings isn't an end goal for some religions, in fact it's the contrary.

So yeah, as usual the atheist position would end up as the logical one at least as per some religious beliefs if not all.

 

[shamans]

@nimic - here we are again. Defensively conquering land & cities.

I know geography knowledge in this country is poor but Mecca is one city. This is the easiest read you can find, a wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim–Quraysh_War

It clearly mentions three defensive wars and a conquest, but i think I get a sense of where you got your Islamic facts from. Again you have plenty of examples to go to for aggressive wars. Mecca and the battles leading to it doesn't fit in your examples at all no matter how you look at it.

 

[Moby]

Are you completely atheist? As in 100% non belief in a creator outside of this creation?

I don't discount that possibility but there's 0% chance of that creator ever being anything that's described in any religion we have known.

More importantly, that factoid if true is barely academic, let alone having any implication on ANYTHING that we as a species do or function as, which is where my interest and frustrations about religion lie. A speculation at best on a possible creator has shaped the fecking civilisation that we live in, absolute madness.

 

[shamans]

I don't discount that possibility but there's 0% chance of that creator ever being anything that's described in any religion we have known.

More importantly, that factoid if true is barely academic, let alone having any implication on ANYTHING that we as a species do or function as, which is where my interest and frustrations about religion lie. A speculation at best on a possible creator has shaped the fecking civilisation that we live in, absolute madness.

Even from a purely scientific perspective, religion is the vehicle to express human nature. If there was no religion, nothing would be much different. Human greed and desires would result in the same world.

 

[Carolina Red]

I know geography knowledge in this country is poor but Mecca is one city.

Yeah? And how about Khaybar? How about Taif?

 

[shamans]

Yeah? And how about Khaybar? How about Taif?

"The warfare the led to Mecca can hardly be considered aggressive"

You finally found some examples not related to "choosing to go after Mecca". Good.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Wow

 

[Carolina Red]

"The warfare the led to Mecca can hardly be considered aggressive"

You finally found some examples not related to "choosing to go after Mecca". Good.

Look bud, you tried to be a smart ass about geography because I said “defensively conquering land and cities”.

Mecca isn’t all Muhammad conquered. You know that, and, surprise surprise, I know that too.

Oh… and Khaybar was in the lead up to Mecca, not after it.

 

[shamans]

Look bud, you tried to be a smart ass about geography because I said “defensively conquering land and cities”.

Mecca isn’t all Muhammad conquered. You know that, and, surprise surprise, I know that too.

Oh… and Khaybar was in the lead up to Mecca, not after it.

Odd to take some victorious stance on this...

You went from saying they "choose violence against Mecca. And that "The whole war thing that the conquest was part of. That was pretty violent."

This all started with my reservation of using Mecca as an example when I kept telling you you can find much better examples of aggressive wars, which you finally did. Now you're talking about totally different wars that had nothing to do with violence "against Mecca". I know middle eastern history is not taught around here but come on, this is basic.

 

[Carolina Red]

Odd to take some victorious stance on this...

You went from saying they "choose violence against Mecca. And that "The whole war thing that the conquest was part of. That was pretty violent."

This all started with my reservation of using Mecca as an example when I kept telling you can find much better examples of aggressive wars, which you finally did. Now you're talking about totally different wars that had nothing to do with violence "against Mecca". I know middle eastern history is not taught around here but come on, this is basic.

Shocker: I called a nearly decade long war “violent”.

Mecca was the seat of the Quraysh Tribe. The Quraysh and their allies were the enemies of Muhammad’s army. Choosing “violence against Mecca” is analogous to saying modern Russia has chosen violence against Kyiv. So, kindly, if you’re going to try and insult my education, at least be a bit less shit at it.

 

[shamans]

Shocker: I called a nearly decade long war “violent”.

Mecca was the seat of the Quraysh Tribe. The Quraysh and their allies were the enemies of Muhammad’s army. Choosing “violence against Mecca” is analogous to saying modern Russia has chosen violence against Kyiv. So, kindly, if you’re going to try and insult my education, at least be a bit less shit at it.

Clearly I'm not the one doing that here with such analogies.

You're doubling down on an embarrassing hill here.

 

[Carolina Red]

Clearly I'm not the one doing that here with such analogies.

You're doubling down on an embarrassing hill here.

Whatever you say bud. Muhammad waged a decade long war primarily against the tribe that controlled Mecca… yet somehow you’re clueless as to why the phrase “he chose violence against Mecca” would be stated. I’ll leave you to that.

 

[Roane]

I know the background to the conflict. It doesn’t change my assessment of Muhammad.

The dispute between us lies in your devotion to defending him to the hilt.

Clearly

 

[Withnail]

Religion was invented to control people. In a good way. A world without religion would be absolute chaos.

All people follow religion, whether we are religious or not. There are rules and norms that we naturally follow, largely based on fear, that help to keep society in check.

I'm extremely dubious about the second statement but do you have anything to back up for your first point at all?

 

[Relevated]

How many of them claim to be the prophet of the one true god at the same time?

Edit: and for that matter, how many of them could do so and remain in office and not be committed to a psych ward?

What do you exactly what to be informed about? Will that benefit you in any way? I don't know exactly what you're fighting, but if you want to lead a life according to your own desires and moral compass then thats fine. Its your choice.

 

[Relevated]

How many of them claim to be the prophet of the one true god at the same time?

Edit: and for that matter, how many of them could do so and remain in office and not be committed to a psych ward?

Regardless of my previous reply, this post is so strange. Are you saying its okay to be a 'warlord' providing you dont claim to be a prophet at the same time?

 

[Relevated]

Religion was invented to control people. In a good way. A world without religion would be absolute chaos.

All people follow religion, whether we are religious or not. There are rules and norms that we naturally follow, largely based on fear, that help to keep society in check.

Everybody follows something, definitely. We all take our morals, understanding, and views from somewhere. Our opinions are based off of something, be it a God or just the society around us.

Thats why these debates/arguments are so pointless in my eyes. You either accept that you take your views from a religion/god, or you accept that you take your views from society.

People get so heated up in these debates its crazy

 

[calodo2003]