How 'Rational Atheists' spread anti Islam pro US military propaganda

[Friendly Foil]

(

I'd comment on this, but my English skills are not good enough and would probably get me into trouble. So I'll try and keep it short.

 

I know there's lots of happy muslim people (and foreigners in general) who appreciates the second chance they get in the countries to the right, but what's the deal with the unhappy ones? The ones who support sharia zones in the cities and all that silly stuff. I know it's a super vocal minority, but what the shit?

 

I know it's super politically incorrect to ask question like this (at least where I live), but really. Does anyone have a logical explanation for this? Of course I could ask a Muslim person myself, but the ones I know are perfectly normal people and I doubt they'd know the answer to any of this.

[LimpyLoo]

Holy shit, Friendly Foil, I didn't know you were such a raging Islamaphobe.

 

 

 

(seriously though, I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this)

[Guest Iain C]

I know it's super politically incorrect to ask question like this (at least where I live), but really. Does anyone have a logical explanation for this? Of course I could ask a Muslim person myself, but the ones I know are perfectly normal people and I doubt they'd know the answer to any of this.

 

 

he logical explanation is that there are extremists on the spectrum of every religious or political ideology. Some people are happy to vote Tory, others go a little further to the right and vote UKIP, others still go outright fascist and vote BNP, and then the extreme outliers go and join the National Front and start nailbombing mosques or gay bars or whatever. Name a cause, and you'll find someone willing to take it further and further.

 

As to why these people come to western nations in the first place - well, a lot of them aren't foreigners at all. Many may well be disillusioned second or third generation immigrants who are drawn to extremism for whatever reason, and maybe hold some kind of idealised vision of "old country values". Speaking just for Europe, right-wing extremism is on the rise among white Christian and secular communities, in no small part due to our fucked economies, and it makes sense that this would be reflected in other communities as well. As for immigrants - maybe they just prefer the climate to their native countries and that overrides all the heretical liberalism.

 

Honestly, we're talking about such a small minority of an already-marginalised and disempowered minority that I don't lose much sleep over it. I think sections of the media gives these people a disproportionately loud voice because it fits a narrative they've created that furthers their own ideologies.

[syd syside]

 

And it is amazing to see people only criticize the United States aggression, while ignoring/labeling criticism of similar acts of aggression by Islamic fascists.

 

We should be more honest about what potential threat we do face, that it exists, and that religious fascism is not good as it keeps people forced within a doctrine and keeps women oppressed with is the main cause of poverty.

 

i'm not sure why i'm selecting these two points from the past 7 pages but here it goes...

 

for you to believe that a) islamic violence can be compared with US violence and b) islamic violence is ignored can only be explained as the result of severe delusion. the united states has the most massive military in the world and the scale of the violence is unleashes on this planet can be compared to none. people are absolutely right and of sound mind to focus on the actions of the us military which include the slaughter of innocent lives on the scale of hundreds of thousands, unilateral pre-emptive wars, torture (including the disgusting and highly documented events at abu ghraib), extrajudicial killings, drone strikes, illegal surveillance including on its own citizens, the running of detention camps where people are sent (and tortured) literally without charges or any recourse to legal proceeding, etc. etc. ad naseum. and i'm not even going to mention past wars and such atrocities as the atomic bombs we dropped on japan (the reasons for which you also get completely wrong yet again). there is no military in the world that comes close to the scale of violence and massacre waged upon the planet by the us. this is what people are so outspoken against and they are completely right to find us unilateral militarism to be the biggest fucking threat to life on earth, way more so than "islamic fascism." so quite literally, speaking of "similar acts of aggression by islamic fascists" is meaningless. "islamic fascists" have a long, long, long fucking way to go before they can play with the big boys.

 

now, your second point about islamic fascism keeping women oppressed and causing poverty....ugh...poverty in america is obviously a major issue right now and it's probably a good idea to stfu about "islamic fascism" and focus your attention to how this country is being run to the ground by the criminal collusion of government and private monied interests. while our government hands out luxurious kick backs and massive tax breaks to the rich they're slashing public services while the poor keep getting poorer than ever. there are no islamic fascists at play here, just decadent white bigots. the same bigots who are systematically rolling back women's rights in this country on a nigh daily basis. you want to talk about how islam oppresses women? go to fucking iran and become an activist or some shit man. but stop fucking crying about it in these threads. people, americans, ought to have a duty to be outraged about the reasons poverty is so rampant in this country, why women are being legally subjected to humiliating and invasive medical procedures just b/c republicans don't like abortion, why rape is such a rampant and under-prosecuted crime, why discrimination against homosexuality on a legal level is still a "debate" here, etc. etc.

 

my point is, please stfu about "islamic fascism." you obviously don't know anything about islam. it's evident you've never thoughtfully studied the subject, you aren't concerned with where your information about it comes from and your overall approach to the subject is hypocritical and bigoted.

 

as an american i have a lot more important shit to worry about than evil muslim terrorists and so should you.

 

lol holy shit man

 

relax

 

again, you can be critical of US foreign policy and Islamic fascism. Which is my stance. But not yours...

[syd syside]

good response Alco.

 

 

Honestly I tried several different times to write a rather long-winded rebuttal to the number of faulty lines of reasoning/argument here, but my head would explode trying to figure out where to begin.

 

Ultimately, the very beginning premise of what you are continually proposing Compson (along with simultaneously moving the goal posts), is that the violent language in one specific religious book as opposed to all of them, is a priori responsible for the instability and violence in these regions. You even openly admitted several times in this thread, that you are ignorant of the past geopolitical histories of these regions, and double-down on "Islamic texts=violent society." Again, emphasis on Islam as a religion of violence; all other acts of religious violence are irrelevant because "Islam does it more." I'll get back to this point in a second.

 

I cannot begin to tell you, as you are an intelligent person, of the absolute danger and carelessness of that way of thinking. Isolating all of the Middle East and destabilized Muslim-majority nations into a vacuum of purely irrational religious bigotry and extremism without acknowledging the numerous other outside influences that shape and push them into the current situation. I'm surprised as a militant atheist myself, that I need to remind other atheists or anti-theists that there is not a prioritized hierarchy of problematic deistic religions. They all stem from the same goddamn mythos, and are equally culpable for the perpetuation of violence worldwide.

 

I've seen so many statements in here equating Islam with culture, again, as if Islam is some sort of impenetrable monolithic structure, cohesively unified and never wavering, as if the Sunni/Shiite split never happened, as if Wahhabism was an inherently popular and only form of Islamic practice since its inception, as if Afghanistan wasn't a secular nation in the 1940s and 50s, as if Muslim progressives or govt. dissension simply do not exist.

 

Mr. E, I have had a number of conversations with you in Chatmm and despite disagreements we often remained pretty civil. But in all honesty, I cannot begin to tell you how ridiculously stupid your earlier statements are/were. Saying, "You can talk about history all you want, but this is now" is so inherently nonsensical and stupid, that I am ready to believe you were emotional and did not think that statement through before you posted. I don't think I really need to explain further why that statement is incredibly naive, childish, or misleading, but I will explain why, in conjunction with some of Compson's statements, that it is dangerous.

 

To view everything solely through the prism of Islamic extremism, to further assume that because extremists dominate many Islamic governments that Islam is by nature a naturally uber-violent set of religious doctrine, and on top of that exclude all the other monotheistic belief systems that advocate violence from the same scrutiny, simply by virtue of having done "less of it".

 

My overall point is this: these attitudes are imperialistic, and they are very, very close to being explicitly racist. If you only choose to accept the religious motivations of a society as opposed to outside interference, economic and political instability, social migration, and other factors, you are a priori affirming any other religion to be more morally virtuous, thus the West is better and more morally virtuous. Not accounting for the fact that the founding and defense of Israel is religiously motivated, not to mention what Awe said about the leader of the free world hearing God's voice instructing him to "shock and awe" Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention constant CIA involvement in destabilizing these territories for 50 years, not to mention the British French and German nations destabilizing these nations for hundreds of years, not to mention the process of African colonization which was predicated by "White Man's Burden", to Christianize and modernize the savages of the dark continent, not to mention the African slave trade even before that which was justified via other equally ridiculous and heinous religious excuses. But lo and behold, I cannot tell you how fast the excuses come out of the woodwork: there were reasons outside of religion for these practices to continue or occur. And I wouldn't, as a rational human being, disagree with that statement. Yet that is exactly what some people here are doing in regards to the oh-so-adorable delination of "Islamofascism" in the Middle East.

 

But again, perhaps I shouldn't delve into history, because that isn't relevant, right? The criticism timer must have dinged after a 100, 50, 25, 10, 5 years. What is relevant is the now, completely detached from any external stimuli or causation. Again, perhaps my criticism of ALL deistic religion as equally and inherently corrosive to human existence is naive, and we should instead focus on the body counts of the last ten years, and only the bodies which were destroyed via "undiplomatic" or "unofficial" means.

 

Atheists should hold all deistic religion equally in contempt, and this is not what I see here, nor from Mr. Harris. What I see is cultural blinders willingly held in place under the contemptible excuse of "pragmatism", when in reality they are only spurring on their own form of zealous bigotry under the false guise of "rational thinking", and corrupting our ability to see outside of the prism of religion.

 

So your thesis is Islam has nothing to do with violence.

 

Where are the Tibetan suicide bombers? The Chinese Government has killed 0.6-1.2M. Your conclusion that it is simply geo-political or economic circumstance that leads to actual beliefs of martyrdom is unfounded.

 

And to make a kind of moderate-religious conclusion that all major religions have basically the exact same teachings and affect on culture is precisely the kind of political correctness that is polluting our public discourse today.

 

Completely disregard the fact that for almost 300 years the printing press was banned in Islamic nations. This in no way could explain the regression and different stage of Islam today compared to the secular west could it? Na...

 

And Atheist should not hold all religions in equal contempt. If one religion is causing more violence and harm to society then it would be of more wisdom to focus on that, then to say Osama Bin Laden and the Dali Llama are equal.

 

What a load of shit. Lol

[Guest Iain C]

 

good response Alco.

 

 

Honestly I tried several different times to write a rather long-winded rebuttal to the number of faulty lines of reasoning/argument here, but my head would explode trying to figure out where to begin.

 

Ultimately, the very beginning premise of what you are continually proposing Compson (along with simultaneously moving the goal posts), is that the violent language in one specific religious book as opposed to all of them, is a priori responsible for the instability and violence in these regions. You even openly admitted several times in this thread, that you are ignorant of the past geopolitical histories of these regions, and double-down on "Islamic texts=violent society." Again, emphasis on Islam as a religion of violence; all other acts of religious violence are irrelevant because "Islam does it more." I'll get back to this point in a second.

 

I cannot begin to tell you, as you are an intelligent person, of the absolute danger and carelessness of that way of thinking. Isolating all of the Middle East and destabilized Muslim-majority nations into a vacuum of purely irrational religious bigotry and extremism without acknowledging the numerous other outside influences that shape and push them into the current situation. I'm surprised as a militant atheist myself, that I need to remind other atheists or anti-theists that there is not a prioritized hierarchy of problematic deistic religions. They all stem from the same goddamn mythos, and are equally culpable for the perpetuation of violence worldwide.

 

I've seen so many statements in here equating Islam with culture, again, as if Islam is some sort of impenetrable monolithic structure, cohesively unified and never wavering, as if the Sunni/Shiite split never happened, as if Wahhabism was an inherently popular and only form of Islamic practice since its inception, as if Afghanistan wasn't a secular nation in the 1940s and 50s, as if Muslim progressives or govt. dissension simply do not exist.

 

Mr. E, I have had a number of conversations with you in Chatmm and despite disagreements we often remained pretty civil. But in all honesty, I cannot begin to tell you how ridiculously stupid your earlier statements are/were. Saying, "You can talk about history all you want, but this is now" is so inherently nonsensical and stupid, that I am ready to believe you were emotional and did not think that statement through before you posted. I don't think I really need to explain further why that statement is incredibly naive, childish, or misleading, but I will explain why, in conjunction with some of Compson's statements, that it is dangerous.

 

To view everything solely through the prism of Islamic extremism, to further assume that because extremists dominate many Islamic governments that Islam is by nature a naturally uber-violent set of religious doctrine, and on top of that exclude all the other monotheistic belief systems that advocate violence from the same scrutiny, simply by virtue of having done "less of it".

 

My overall point is this: these attitudes are imperialistic, and they are very, very close to being explicitly racist. If you only choose to accept the religious motivations of a society as opposed to outside interference, economic and political instability, social migration, and other factors, you are a priori affirming any other religion to be more morally virtuous, thus the West is better and more morally virtuous. Not accounting for the fact that the founding and defense of Israel is religiously motivated, not to mention what Awe said about the leader of the free world hearing God's voice instructing him to "shock and awe" Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention constant CIA involvement in destabilizing these territories for 50 years, not to mention the British French and German nations destabilizing these nations for hundreds of years, not to mention the process of African colonization which was predicated by "White Man's Burden", to Christianize and modernize the savages of the dark continent, not to mention the African slave trade even before that which was justified via other equally ridiculous and heinous religious excuses. But lo and behold, I cannot tell you how fast the excuses come out of the woodwork: there were reasons outside of religion for these practices to continue or occur. And I wouldn't, as a rational human being, disagree with that statement. Yet that is exactly what some people here are doing in regards to the oh-so-adorable delination of "Islamofascism" in the Middle East.

 

But again, perhaps I shouldn't delve into history, because that isn't relevant, right? The criticism timer must have dinged after a 100, 50, 25, 10, 5 years. What is relevant is the now, completely detached from any external stimuli or causation. Again, perhaps my criticism of ALL deistic religion as equally and inherently corrosive to human existence is naive, and we should instead focus on the body counts of the last ten years, and only the bodies which were destroyed via "undiplomatic" or "unofficial" means.

 

Atheists should hold all deistic religion equally in contempt, and this is not what I see here, nor from Mr. Harris. What I see is cultural blinders willingly held in place under the contemptible excuse of "pragmatism", when in reality they are only spurring on their own form of zealous bigotry under the false guise of "rational thinking", and corrupting our ability to see outside of the prism of religion.

 

So your thesis is Islam has nothing to do with violence.

 

Where are the Tibetan suicide bombers? The Chinese Government has killed 0.6-1.2M. Your conclusion that it is simply geo-political or economic circumstance that leads to actual beliefs of martyrdom is unfounded.

 

And to make a kind of moderate-religious conclusion that all major religions have basically the exact same teachings and affect on culture is precisely the kind of political correctness that is polluting our public discourse today.

 

You don't know when you've been owned, do you?

 

You've already proven that it's literally useless trying to argue with you, but for the record: before the year 2000, the Tamil Tigers had carried out, by a HUGE margin, by far the most suicide bombings. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, they developed and popularised the modern suicide attack. They were a nationalist organisation pursuing secular aims, and even though many of their rank and file members and supporters were Hindu, their leadership were avowed atheists. Guess what geopolitical events occurred around the year 2000 to shift the balance - and here's a hint, that's not the year the Prophet Muhammad first recorded the Quran although I wouldn't put it past you to claim so.

 

And if you're holding the Tibetans up as some kind of counter-example because they're Buddhist and Buddhists don't do that kind of thing, then I kindly direct your attention to Burma where right now members of the Buddhist majority, including many monks or extremists claiming to be monks, are persecuting and massacring Rohingya Muslims to widespread silence from the international media, not to mention Burma's supposedly enlightened liberal opposition who know it would be political suicide to defend Muslims.

[eugene]

Ultimately, the very beginning premise of what you are continually proposing Compson (along with simultaneously moving the goal posts), is that the violent language in one specific religious book as opposed to all of them, is a priori responsible for the instability and violence in these regions. You even openly admitted several times in this thread, that you are ignorant of the past geopolitical histories of these regions, and double-down on "Islamic texts=violent society." Again, emphasis on Islam as a religion of violence; all other acts of religious violence are irrelevant because "Islam does it more." I'll get back to this point in a second.

are you basing this claim on some sort of comparative study that is based on textual analyses of the holy texts about the possible range of meanings that can be extracted from those texts ? im pretty sure if you directly asked compson or anyone else whether literal texts lead to direct action the answer would probably be "of course not", but those very particular texts also have particular effects.

for example, there's absolutely no way you can stretch bible to accept homosexuality, it just cannot coexist with this idea. im not familiar with koran but im pretty sure that all of islams schools of though also condemn homosexuality. but the point is not the attitudes to homosexuality but idea the texts themselves have power, regardless of the multitude of possible interpretations.

i understand atheists' criticism against those books and the attitudes of religious people towards well them but it is stupid not to differentiate between them.

I cannot begin to tell you, as you are an intelligent person, of the absolute danger and carelessness of that way of thinking. Isolating all of the Middle East and destabilized Muslim-majority nations into a vacuum of purely irrational religious bigotry and extremism without acknowledging the numerous other outside influences that shape and push them into the current situation. I'm surprised as a militant atheist myself, that I need to remind other atheists or anti-theists that there is not a prioritized hierarchy of problematic deistic religions. They all stem from the same goddamn mythos, and are equally culpable for the perpetuation of violence worldwide.

there's nothing wrong with focusing on one particular aspect of society for theoretical purposes. there's those relatively unknown marxist theories that see the world from materialist perspective, there's a branch called political psychology that focuses on the psych and personality of state leaders and their effect on decision making...you get the idea.

and again, different religions are differently culpable in perpetuation of different forms of violence, anthropology wouldn't exists if those were empirically equal.

I've seen so many statements in here equating Islam with culture, again, as if Islam is some sort of impenetrable monolithic structure, cohesively unified and never wavering, as if the Sunni/Shiite split never happened, as if Wahhabism was an inherently popular and only form of Islamic practice since its inception, as if Afghanistan wasn't a secular nation in the 1940s and 50s, as if Muslim progressives or govt. dissension simply do not exist.

that's an important distinction, but im pretty sure we're talking about cases where islam is a significant element of the culture without naming those explicitly. sure it would be a much better idea to see how different cultures interpret koran and other writings rather than just bring up quotes, but as i said, the range of interpretations is not infinite, the fact the the text is sanctified limits that range.

If you only choose to accept the religious motivations of a society as opposed to outside interference, economic and political instability, social migration, and other factors, you are a priori affirming any other religion to be more morally virtuous, thus the West is better and more morally virtuous.

i don't think that anyone here did that, the focus is on religion and its effects obviously, but it is ludicrous to assume that it is the only determinant.

Not accounting for the fact that the founding and defense of Israel is religiously motivated,

not really, mainstream zionism was a secular national movement although some religous, historical and jewish culture elements were exploited, hence the choice of area for example.

not to mention what Awe said about the leader of the free world hearing God's voice instructing him to "shock and awe" Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention constant CIA involvement in destabilizing these territories for 50 years, not to mention the British French and German nations destabilizing these nations for hundreds of years, not to mention the process of African colonization which was predicated by "White Man's Burden", to Christianize and modernize the savages of the dark continent, not to mention the African slave trade even before that which was justified via other equally ridiculous and heinous religious excuses. But lo and behold, I cannot tell you how fast the excuses come out of the woodwork: there were reasons outside of religion for these practices to continue or occur.

so i guess with calling those as "excuses" you claim that there was absolutely no actual religious motivations behind those practices ? then why do you think such excuses were made at all ? i'd argue that this is because they served as a powerful motivator for the perpetrators, in other words, some of the success of such practices owes to religion. just this notion justifies focusing on it.

Atheists should hold all deistic religion equally in contempt, and this is not what I see here, nor from Mr. Harris. What I see is cultural blinders willingly held in place under the contemptible excuse of "pragmatism", when in reality they are only spurring on their own form of zealous bigotry under the false guise of "rational thinking", and corrupting our ability to see outside of the prism of religion.

the idea of "seeing a speck of sawdust in your brothers eye" is very clear in greenwalds article, and maybe it's compson's methods that makes him look like those greenwald criticizes, but i don't think that nationality should prevent one from looking into and critizicing a particular subject. sure, Alco might not be interested in such discussions and theorizing but others might, and there's nothing wrong with it.

[SR4]

eugene i might respond to come of your criticisms when I have time, as they are certainly worth a response. Maybe in a PM?

 

 

But quite honestly if what I wrote is brushed off as PC liberal bullshit then there really isn't any point in talking about it further on here.

[eugene]

respond when you want but why pm ?

[Alcofribas]

eugene, don't troll me again ffs. grow up.

[MisterE]

smett i don't think my comments were/are totally stupid. it might have been off topic, because i guess the topic of the thread is dealing with islam and how people view it. my sentiment was that i think that's a distraction from what should be the main focus, which isn't the religion but the behaviors that people are actually condemning, and how tied to the cultures of these countries those behaviors actually are/may be. the religious aspect gets brought in, and distracts from that, because then smart asses like you can say stuff like 'oh but christians did some really bad stuff a few hundred yrs ago too, here are examples.' no shit sherlock. everyone knows about that stuff by now, especially in a forum where liberal leaning people such as yourself constantly talk about it. you want to bring history and hold acts committed by the long dead ancestors of a small % of the living white people in the world against a religion, fine, but don't try to extrapolate and suggest that it somehow reflects on all living white people and takes away their right to think about injustices around the world.

 

either there is a lot more violence in some of these middle east countries per capita than there is in the US/euro, or there isn't. either you think it's not cool to stone women for adultery, or you think it's ok. if you think there are bad behaviors that are common in other parts of the world, how is it at all productive to give unrelated examples of bad things done by white people in history? just admit it, you are programmed to go out of your way to defend other cultures because it's the 'PC' thing to do. it's so blatantly obvious to anyone who actually cares to see it. why is it ok for you to participate in a conversation, or even start one about things that are dumb about Catholicism, but you just absolutely cannot bring yourself to say anything slightly critical about Islam? and not only that, but if someone else does, you have to don your red cape, swoop into the thread, and point out that some dead white people did some bad shit one time also. you are such a weiner.

 

and when you say this right after mentioning me: To view everything solely through the prism of Islamic extremism, to further assume that because extremists dominate many Islamic governments that Islam is by nature a naturally uber-violent set of religious doctrine, and on top of that exclude all the other monotheistic belief systems that advocate violence from the same scrutiny, simply by virtue of having done "less of it".

doesn't that kind of make you an ass since i went out of my way to make clear that i didn't particularly care about their religion, or whether it had anything to do with their behaviors? yes. yes it does.

 

you can bring related historical context into things, sure. like ok you can say the US has meddled in things and maybe intensified the tension. but do you honestly believe that their countries would be much more 'civilized' (not stoning adulterers several hundred yrs after 'we' stopped doing it) and less abusive towards their women, and less violent in general, if no white man had ever interacted with them? maybe you have a bit of a case of self-loathing/racism towards white men? like maybe you think all that is evil comes from crackers? also i think it's a BS tactic of you to try to suggest that someone being more critical of islam than of any other religion is most likely racist, when you absolutely are more critical of christianity than you are of any other religion. 100%, you are. it's completely hypocritical, and when i see that it causes me to rule out your opinions on the topic completely. you can say you hold all religions in equal contempt, but it's total bullshit. how many threads bashing christians have you ever popped into to play Smettingham Rutherford is: The EQualizer?

 

here's some you:

"yeah, if you are a hardcore adherent to Catholic doctrine, anything other than fulfilling God's given prerogative to be fruitful and multiply is akin to heresy."

then you post a vid where a dude talks about priests fucking little boys for 10 minutes. then someone says they dont care what the pope thinks about gay marriage to which you respond:

"i care about the millions of people, at least two of whom are my relatives, buy into this shit show and believe a man vetted by a criminal organization to be the conduit between the heavens and earth, and are willing to part with their hard-earned money, and not least their rationality and personal moral compass in support of this charade."

 

its ok for you to say all that shit totally condemning catholicism, but heaven jesus god in hell help us all if someone else decides to say anything critical of islam! smetty please fly in and save the day, someone is being islamophobe! i'd ask you to explain how this doesn't make you a complete and total hypocrite but i won't, because you can't. you'll just say some big words (oh god) and throw out more accusations of racism.

 

PS the race card is totally played out. your elite crack force team of PC thought police has played it so much, that most people just dont give a crap about it anymore. congrats on the whole helping to trivialize actual racism by throwing out race cards every-single-time-you-want-to-win-a-debate thing.

[syd syside]

 

 

good response Alco.

 

 

Honestly I tried several different times to write a rather long-winded rebuttal to the number of faulty lines of reasoning/argument here, but my head would explode trying to figure out where to begin.

 

Ultimately, the very beginning premise of what you are continually proposing Compson (along with simultaneously moving the goal posts), is that the violent language in one specific religious book as opposed to all of them, is a priori responsible for the instability and violence in these regions. You even openly admitted several times in this thread, that you are ignorant of the past geopolitical histories of these regions, and double-down on "Islamic texts=violent society." Again, emphasis on Islam as a religion of violence; all other acts of religious violence are irrelevant because "Islam does it more." I'll get back to this point in a second.

 

I cannot begin to tell you, as you are an intelligent person, of the absolute danger and carelessness of that way of thinking. Isolating all of the Middle East and destabilized Muslim-majority nations into a vacuum of purely irrational religious bigotry and extremism without acknowledging the numerous other outside influences that shape and push them into the current situation. I'm surprised as a militant atheist myself, that I need to remind other atheists or anti-theists that there is not a prioritized hierarchy of problematic deistic religions. They all stem from the same goddamn mythos, and are equally culpable for the perpetuation of violence worldwide.

 

I've seen so many statements in here equating Islam with culture, again, as if Islam is some sort of impenetrable monolithic structure, cohesively unified and never wavering, as if the Sunni/Shiite split never happened, as if Wahhabism was an inherently popular and only form of Islamic practice since its inception, as if Afghanistan wasn't a secular nation in the 1940s and 50s, as if Muslim progressives or govt. dissension simply do not exist.

 

Mr. E, I have had a number of conversations with you in Chatmm and despite disagreements we often remained pretty civil. But in all honesty, I cannot begin to tell you how ridiculously stupid your earlier statements are/were. Saying, "You can talk about history all you want, but this is now" is so inherently nonsensical and stupid, that I am ready to believe you were emotional and did not think that statement through before you posted. I don't think I really need to explain further why that statement is incredibly naive, childish, or misleading, but I will explain why, in conjunction with some of Compson's statements, that it is dangerous.

 

To view everything solely through the prism of Islamic extremism, to further assume that because extremists dominate many Islamic governments that Islam is by nature a naturally uber-violent set of religious doctrine, and on top of that exclude all the other monotheistic belief systems that advocate violence from the same scrutiny, simply by virtue of having done "less of it".

 

My overall point is this: these attitudes are imperialistic, and they are very, very close to being explicitly racist. If you only choose to accept the religious motivations of a society as opposed to outside interference, economic and political instability, social migration, and other factors, you are a priori affirming any other religion to be more morally virtuous, thus the West is better and more morally virtuous. Not accounting for the fact that the founding and defense of Israel is religiously motivated, not to mention what Awe said about the leader of the free world hearing God's voice instructing him to "shock and awe" Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention constant CIA involvement in destabilizing these territories for 50 years, not to mention the British French and German nations destabilizing these nations for hundreds of years, not to mention the process of African colonization which was predicated by "White Man's Burden", to Christianize and modernize the savages of the dark continent, not to mention the African slave trade even before that which was justified via other equally ridiculous and heinous religious excuses. But lo and behold, I cannot tell you how fast the excuses come out of the woodwork: there were reasons outside of religion for these practices to continue or occur. And I wouldn't, as a rational human being, disagree with that statement. Yet that is exactly what some people here are doing in regards to the oh-so-adorable delination of "Islamofascism" in the Middle East.

 

But again, perhaps I shouldn't delve into history, because that isn't relevant, right? The criticism timer must have dinged after a 100, 50, 25, 10, 5 years. What is relevant is the now, completely detached from any external stimuli or causation. Again, perhaps my criticism of ALL deistic religion as equally and inherently corrosive to human existence is naive, and we should instead focus on the body counts of the last ten years, and only the bodies which were destroyed via "undiplomatic" or "unofficial" means.

 

Atheists should hold all deistic religion equally in contempt, and this is not what I see here, nor from Mr. Harris. What I see is cultural blinders willingly held in place under the contemptible excuse of "pragmatism", when in reality they are only spurring on their own form of zealous bigotry under the false guise of "rational thinking", and corrupting our ability to see outside of the prism of religion.

 

So your thesis is Islam has nothing to do with violence.

 

Where are the Tibetan suicide bombers? The Chinese Government has killed 0.6-1.2M. Your conclusion that it is simply geo-political or economic circumstance that leads to actual beliefs of martyrdom is unfounded.

 

And to make a kind of moderate-religious conclusion that all major religions have basically the exact same teachings and affect on culture is precisely the kind of political correctness that is polluting our public discourse today.

 

You don't know when you've been owned, do you?

 

You've already proven that it's literally useless trying to argue with you, but for the record: before the year 2000, the Tamil Tigers had carried out, by a HUGE margin, by far the most suicide bombings. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, they developed and popularised the modern suicide attack. They were a nationalist organisation pursuing secular aims, and even though many of their rank and file members and supporters were Hindu, their leadership were avowed atheists. Guess what geopolitical events occurred around the year 2000 to shift the balance - and here's a hint, that's not the year the Prophet Muhammad first recorded the Quran although I wouldn't put it past you to claim so.

 

And if you're holding the Tibetans up as some kind of counter-example because they're Buddhist and Buddhists don't do that kind of thing, then I kindly direct your attention to Burma where right now members of the Buddhist majority, including many monks or extremists claiming to be monks, are persecuting and massacring Rohingya Muslims to widespread silence from the international media, not to mention Burma's supposedly enlightened liberal opposition who know it would be political suicide to defend Muslims.

 

The Tamil Tigers were a political terrorist organization. Their main goal was to take over Sir Lanka. I don't know how that owns the argument that Islamic fascism also breeds suicidal terrorism against civilians.

 

 

 

So what you've done is taken my example of Tibet, being killed/oppressed etc, generalized Tibet Buddhism as the same as Burma Buddhist. Then concluded that because Burma Buddhist killed Muslims (without addressing my original point), that therefore all Religions are equally violent?

 

To prove my point. Let's look at current conflicts compared to the Sri Lankan Civil War that you propose equates Atheism as being the root for violence and suicide martyrdom (an absurd claim).

 

Syrian War has estimates up to 120,000 deaths thus far. From only 2 years of civil war.

 

While...

 

The Sri Lankan civil war was very costly, killing an estimated 80,000-100,000 people.^[1] The deaths include 27,639 Tamil fighters, more than 21,066 Sri Lankan soldiers, 1000 Sri Lankan police, 1500 Indian soldiers, and tens of thousands of civilians.^{[citation needed]}

 

This is over a period of 26 years....

 

So let's look at some of the history of suicide bombing.

 

Islam

 

The first modern suicide bombing occurred in Iran in 1980 when 13-year old Hossein Fahmideh detonated himself as he ran up to an Iraqi tank at a key point in a battle of the Iran-Iraq War. Lebanon, during its civil war, saw a modern suicide bombing: the Islamic Dawa Party's car bombing of the Iraqi embassy in Beirut, in December 1981. Hezbollah's bombing of the U.S. embassy in April 1983 and attack on United States Marine and French barracks in October 1983 brought suicide bombings international attention.

 

Tigers

 

Lebanon saw the first bombing, but it was the Tamil Tigers who perfected the tactic and inspired its use elsewhere. Their Black Tiger unit have committed between 76 and 168 (estimates vary) suicide bombings since 1987, using more than 240 attackers. Their victims included former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi (assassinated by Thenmuli Rajaratnam), many prominent Lankan leaders (among them the late PM Ranasinghe Premadasa), Colombo's Central Bank, and even warships.

 

Now two things to note. Suicide bombing was not invented by Atheist. Not sure if that is your claim but whatever, moving along.

 

Support for Suicide Bombing

Is suicide bombing justifiable?Percent of Muslims responding Often/sometimes justified (2011)

Palestinian ter. 68% Lebanon 35% Egypt 28% Israel 20% Jordan 13% Indonesia 10% Turkey 7% Pakistan 5%

 

So which religion appears to justify Suicide bombings most in this modern age?

 

I think the answer is fairly clear. And if you think that there is justification for killing innocent civilians (which is what Palestinian terrorism aims to do) then you are morally bankrupt as a human being. So why do we continue to ignore this problem of radical Islam justifying and promoting violence?

 

Chinese Government killing about 1 Million Tibetans.... yet we have over 60% of Palestinians supporting the notion that strapping a bomb to their child and sending him into a civilian neighborhood is somehow justified?

 

Sure the economic circumstance leads one to acts of rebellion, but unlike other parts of the world which has also had Western imperialism or other imperialism, Islam is currently the most tuned for the radical belief that blowing yourself and killing infidels will lead you to paradise. If you can't flat say that this ideology is a problem and that this violence being promoted is not good for people... then ask yourself... what are your morals?

[eugene]

eugene, don't troll me again ffs. grow up.

not sure if you're serious, but if yes then i really didn't try to troll you, just brought you up as an example.

[Alcofribas]

wel now i'm not sure wtf is going on. if you were not seriously suggesting i was not interested in discussion/theorizing then no prob bro.

 

*reports you for theorizing*

[eugene]

you said that you'd "rather not waste my time with such fantasies.", so my reply was "it's cool, other might be interested in such fantasies (theorizing). ". i get it that you want to participate in this, just not from compson's angle.

[SR4]

smett i don't think my comments were/are totally stupid. it might have been off topic, because i guess the topic of the thread is dealing with islam and how people view it. my sentiment was that i think that's a distraction from what should be the main focus, which isn't the religion but the behaviors that people are actually condemning, and how tied to the cultures of these countries those behaviors actually are/may be. the religious aspect gets brought in, and distracts from that, because then smart asses like you can say stuff like 'oh but christians did some really bad stuff a few hundred yrs ago too, here are examples.' no shit sherlock. everyone knows about that stuff by now, especially in a forum where liberal leaning people such as yourself constantly talk about it. you want to bring history and hold acts committed by the long dead ancestors of a small % of the living white people in the world against a religion, fine, but don't try to extrapolate and suggest that it somehow reflects on all living white people and takes away their right to think about injustices around the world.

 

either there is a lot more violence in some of these middle east countries per capita than there is in the US/euro, or there isn't. either you think it's not cool to stone women for adultery, or you think it's ok. if you think there are bad behaviors that are common in other parts of the world, how is it at all productive to give unrelated examples of bad things done by white people in history? just admit it, you are programmed to go out of your way to defend other cultures because it's the 'PC' thing to do. it's so blatantly obvious to anyone who actually cares to see it. why is it ok for you to participate in a conversation, or even start one about things that are dumb about Catholicism, but you just absolutely cannot bring yourself to say anything slightly critical about Islam? and not only that, but if someone else does, you have to don your red cape, swoop into the thread, and point out that some dead white people did some bad shit one time also. you are such a weiner.

 

and when you say this right after mentioning me: To view everything solely through the prism of Islamic extremism, to further assume that because extremists dominate many Islamic governments that Islam is by nature a naturally uber-violent set of religious doctrine, and on top of that exclude all the other monotheistic belief systems that advocate violence from the same scrutiny, simply by virtue of having done "less of it".

doesn't that kind of make you an ass since i went out of my way to make clear that i didn't particularly care about their religion, or whether it had anything to do with their behaviors? yes. yes it does.

 

you can bring related historical context into things, sure. like ok you can say the US has meddled in things and maybe intensified the tension. but do you honestly believe that their countries would be much more 'civilized' (not stoning adulterers several hundred yrs after 'we' stopped doing it) and less abusive towards their women, and less violent in general, if no white man had ever interacted with them? maybe you have a bit of a case of self-loathing/racism towards white men? like maybe you think all that is evil comes from crackers? also i think it's a BS tactic of you to try to suggest that someone being more critical of islam than of any other religion is most likely racist, when you absolutely are more critical of christianity than you are of any other religion. 100%, you are. it's completely hypocritical, and when i see that it causes me to rule out your opinions on the topic completely. you can say you hold all religions in equal contempt, but it's total bullshit. how many threads bashing christians have you ever popped into to play Smettingham Rutherford is: The EQualizer?

 

here's some you:

"yeah, if you are a hardcore adherent to Catholic doctrine, anything other than fulfilling God's given prerogative to be fruitful and multiply is akin to heresy."

then you post a vid where a dude talks about priests fucking little boys for 10 minutes. then someone says they dont care what the pope thinks about gay marriage to which you respond:

"i care about the millions of people, at least two of whom are my relatives, buy into this shit show and believe a man vetted by a criminal organization to be the conduit between the heavens and earth, and are willing to part with their hard-earned money, and not least their rationality and personal moral compass in support of this charade."

 

its ok for you to say all that shit totally condemning catholicism, but heaven jesus god in hell help us all if someone else decides to say anything critical of islam! smetty please fly in and save the day, someone is being islamophobe! i'd ask you to explain how this doesn't make you a complete and total hypocrite but i won't, because you can't. you'll just say some big words (oh god) and throw out more accusations of racism.

 

PS the race card is totally played out. your elite crack force team of PC thought police has played it so much, that most people just dont give a crap about it anymore. congrats on the whole helping to trivialize actual racism by throwing out race cards every-single-time-you-want-to-win-a-debate thing.

 

 

wow....WOW.

 

Here we have it folks, it all comes out on the table.

 

Smetty hates white people, loves Islamic extremism. PROOF POSITIVE.

 

100% I am more critical of Xtianity than any other religion? Damn man, you should be attending the conferences I've been attending; a lot of people in the audience could have sworn I was critical of multiple religions!

 

This is childish nonsense. I'm done here.

[MisterE]

it's childish to try to suppress other people's right to think critically about what's going on in the world with suggestions that they are racist. actually, it's a whole lot worse than just childish.

 

and i think any honest person's evaluation of your participation in this thread would be that it has been defending islam. i would imagine that it's not the only thread where islam has been brought up where most or all of your posts in it have that tone. compare that with any thread railing against christianity/catholocism where your participation is probably (if what i saw from a glance is any indication) always in agreement that it is a poopy religion.

 

like i said, i didn't ask you to explain how this isn't hypocrisy, because you can't. so i'm not at all surprised to see you avoid trying.

[SR4]

ok.

 

 

find one quote in here where I defend Islam. One quote.

 

 

and secondly, if I'm doing the equivocation you claim with Christianity, find one quote where I attribute all of Western society's ills solely to a religion.

[syd syside]

it's childish to try to suppress other people's right to think critically about what's going on in the world with suggestions that they are racist. actually, it's a whole lot worse than just childish.

 

Yep

 

One side of this debate is making an argument, the other one is dancing around the issue and negating criticism with insults.

 

Proof that being a liberal has become just as superficial and fashionable as the conservatives who call Obama a socialist or a muslim.

 

It's exactly the same tendencies.

 

MUTZ PARADOX

 

...even though citizens tend to be more tolerant and aware of reasons for dissent when they hear from others who disagree, few people actually encounter opposing positions and those who do become less likely to act politically.

 

ok.

 

 

find one quote in here where I defend Islam. One quote.

 

Easy.... "Atheists should hold all deistic religion equally in contempt"

 

I can find many more too...

[DerWaschbar]

I don't understand the focus on suicide bombing, what is it exactly that is so abhorrent about it? Civilian deaths I guess? It's dishonorable?

Obviously conventional warfare isn't a very viable option for these groups. I'm sure if the situation were flipped they wouldn't bother with suicide bombing. Why blow yourself up when you can sit in a comfortable chair in an air conditioned room and simply press buttons on a computer to kill enemy combatants and civilians.

[SR4]

 

it's childish to try to suppress other people's right to think critically about what's going on in the world with suggestions that they are racist. actually, it's a whole lot worse than just childish.

 

Yep

 

One side of this debate is making an argument, the other one is dancing around the issue and negating criticism with insults.

 

Proof that being a liberal has become just as superficial and fashionable as the conservatives who call Obama a socialist or a muslim.

 

It's exactly the same tendencies.

 

MUTZ PARADOX

 

>>...even though citizens tend to be more tolerant and aware of reasons for dissent when they hear from others who disagree, few people actually encounter opposing positions and those who do become less likely to act politically.

 

ok.

 

 

find one quote in here where I defend Islam. One quote.

 

Easy.... "Atheists should hold all deistic religion equally in contempt"

 

I can find many more too...

 

 

 

stating that all religions are equally corrosive is a defense of a religion?

 

again, this is pointless. if you want to break it down equitably, here:

 

Me- PC liberal socialist

 

You- old school dogmatic imperialist

[syd syside]

 

 

 

 

it's childish to try to suppress other people's right to think critically about what's going on in the world with suggestions that they are racist. actually, it's a whole lot worse than just childish.

Yep

 

One side of this debate is making an argument, the other one is dancing around the issue and negating criticism with insults.

 

Proof that being a liberal has become just as superficial and fashionable as the conservatives who call Obama a socialist or a muslim.

 

It's exactly the same tendencies.

 

MUTZ PARADOX

>>...even though citizens tend to be more tolerant and aware of reasons for dissent when they hear from others who disagree, few people actually encounter opposing positions and those who do become less likely to act politically.

lockquote>

>ok.

 

 

find one quote in here where I defend Islam. One quote.

Easy.... "Atheists should hold all deistic religion equally in contempt"

 

I can find many more too...

 

 

 

stating that all religions are equally corrosive is a defense of a religion?

 

 

Yes because it negates anyone who thinks Islam is more dangerous/harmful to individuals (present day).

 

 

edit: Joyrex fix this quoting system ffs

[SR4]

I don't understand the focus on suicide bombing, what is it exactly that is so abhorrent about it? Civilian deaths I guess? It's dishonorable?

Obviously conventional warfare isn't a very viable option for these groups. I'm sure if the situation were flipped they wouldn't bother with suicide bombing. Why blow yourself up when you can sit in a comfortable chair in an air conditioned room and simply press buttons on a computer to kill enemy combatants and civilians.

 

 

That's the point though, the air conditioned murder is not as perverted because it does not involve "martyrdom". As if this makes any sense whatsoever.

[Alcofribas]

you said that you'd "rather not waste my time with such fantasies.", so my reply was "it's cool, other might be interested in such fantasies (theorizing). ". i get it that you want to participate in this, just not from compson's angle.

i see what you mean, fair enough. i simply meant compson's collection of posts have come to resemble some weird fantastic postmodern art project rather than a set of ideas, let alone theories, upon which a discussion could be built.

 

i'd also like to be clear that i have no beef with compson really, dude is entitled to his opinions. and i hold the second night of the ae broadcast chatmm close to my heart in which compson became our all knowing guru, that shit was lush.

[SR4]

 

 

 

it's childish to try to suppress other people's right to think critically about what's going on in the world with suggestions that they are racist. actually, it's a whole lot worse than just childish.

Yep

 

One side of this debate is making an argument, the other one is dancing around the issue and negating criticism with insults.

 

Proof that being a liberal has become just as superficial and fashionable as the conservatives who call Obama a socialist or a muslim.

 

It's exactly the same tendencies.

 

MUTZ PARADOX

>>...even though citizens tend to be more tolerant and aware of reasons for dissent when they hear from others who disagree, few people actually encounter opposing positions and those who do become less likely to act politically.

lockquote>

>ok.

 

 

find one quote in here where I defend Islam. One quote.

Easy.... "Atheists should hold all deistic religion equally in contempt"

 

I can find many more too...

 

 

stating that all religions are equally corrosive is a defense of a religion?

Yes because it negates anyone who thinks Islam is more dangerous/harmful to individuals (present day).

 

edit: Joyrex fix this quoting system ffs

 

 

again, this statement is logically inadequate and stems from incorrect and generalized assumptions.