ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 10th June 2019, 01:45 PM   #441
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
There is already a word for that: anti-theism.

Yes I will enthusiastically put my hand up as an anti-theism dude. Not anti-theist however. Those poor deluded guys need our help to nurse them out.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 06:55 PM   #442
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,995
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Yes I will enthusiastically put my hand up as an anti-theism dude. Not anti-theist however. Those poor deluded guys need our help to nurse them out.
Yes, they need rescuing from themselves, right? We need to free them from their savagery er I mean religion. All they need is a bit of white colonialism er I mean education and everything will be fine.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 01:17 AM   #443
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,571
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I'll actually present a third argument. Sorta.

We already have laws in place to deal with actual terrorist or criminal organizations. It doesn't even matter if it's Christian (e.g., Tripura and Nagaland), Islamic (you name it), Atheist (like for example the Red Army Faction was), or unaffiliated.

The Waco assault for example happened without the idea being even on the table that it merits any religious exemptions. But what mattered was that they were breaking the law, not what they believed in. They tried to resist a search warrant and shot at BATF officers, they got rolled over. Their beliefs didn't even entered that equation.

So why do we need to start dealing with what someone believes in their head, who may or may not even be associated with such an organization? Is there any actual NEED to open that can of worms?

But Han's, the West is not doing that. And you must surely know that. And nobody here is arguing for that.

Western democracies are not targeting Islam as a religion. They are not passing laws to make religious belief in Islam an offence. And nobody here is arguing that Islam in particular (as distinct from Christianity or other religions) should be criminalised or persecuted just because it's not Christianity.

However, what western democracies have been forced to face up to, is the undoubted fact that Islamic religious believers in general (that's over a billion people worldwide), do contain within their midst a very large number of people (several hundred thousand at least) who are so militant in the practice of their daily religion (ie the beliefs that are guiding their entire lives in everything that they do each day), that they do unarguably pose an enormous and very direct threat to anyone and everyone outside of Islamic religion. And lets be honest & clear about this; it's not just a “threat” of doing something, it is countless acts of very deliberate mass murder against anyone who they regard as insufficiently Islamic.

It would be criminally insane negligence for any democratic government to ignore that, or to treat it as no more of a problem than Christian evangelists in the USA (or elsewhere, but they are overwhelmingly located in the USA) who harass people on the streets or protest loudly and disruptively outside abortion clinics etc.

Yes, we all know that Christian fundamentalists in the USA (and sometimes elsewhere) occasionally get seriously out of hand and commit isolated physical attacks on such people as staff at abortion clinics. And in the USA that can be especially dangerous because so many people there are allowed to carry loaded guns (but that's a completely different subject/problem of gun control in the USA). And we all know that Christianity (again most notably in the USA, but also anywhere else around the world) is a huge negative force in any society where it tries to persuade (or actually force) schools to teach creationism instead of science and evolution, tries to get all sorts of tax concessions and financial aid/grants, and tries to influence local and national politics etc. Any honest educated person should want all that stopped. But that's a million miles from being the directly lethal threat that fundamentalist Islam is engaged in right now when it's waging worldwide terrorist-style wars killing hundreds of thousands of people …

… there is absolutely no comparison at all between those two positions.

On top of which, Islam also pursues all those same advantages and favours that Christianity does. For example in the UK (and afaik elsewhere in the EU), Islam also gets all sorts of tax concessions and financial aid to build Mosques & to open Islamic religious schools. And it also organises protests against all manner of Christian or secular or political things that it does not agree with. In fact over the last 20 to 30 years or so there has been a big increase in the number of Muslims putting themselves up for election as MP's either in local or national government, and quite a lot of those elected Muslim representatives are particularly concerned with Islamic issues such as attempts to have Sharia Law more officially recognised rather than UK democratic law.

I'm not especially criticising those UK Muslims who put themselves forward as candidates in elections. In a way, that's a good thing. Or, it should have been a good thing. Except that in a democracy it's also an opportunity for individuals with more ulterior religious and divisive motives to get themselves into a position of official power. But I'm not making a distinction between overtly Christian political candidates vs overtly Islamic candidates - I want both of them stopped, or rather I want their religious agendas to be removed from the politics. But the point is that Islam does all of that just as much as Christianity does.

We all know about the US case of the Dover Trial in which US Christians were dishonestly attempting to get creationism taught in US schools, but more recently a milder version of that was also found to be happening in some UK schools in Muslim areas around Birmingham (UK midlands), where the teachers themselves were predominately Muslim and where they were very deliberately downplaying the evidence for evolution in biology classes and also segregating the girls to be taught separately. Even after they were caught in repeated inspections, the school governors who were themselves all local Muslims, still tried to argue that they should actually teach that way to Muslim children (almost all the children in those schools were Muslim). And just as an update to that - after those schools were forced (by law) to adhere properly and honestly to the national curriculum, and after several immediate inspections showed they had changed their teaching to comply with the national education laws/standards, further inspections a year or two later showed that those same schools had again started to teach all the same things they were first sanctioned for!

So, I'm just pointing out that organised Islam tries to do all those same things that organised Christianity does, and it does try everything possible to get every concession and every possible special ruling for itself … Christianity is not alone in doing that.

But not everything that concerns people in this world is equally serious or equally dangerous. Not all opinions are equally valid. Not all claims of evidence are equally valid. The claimed evidence of creationists against evolution is not just as valid as the scientific evidence in favour of evolution … in the UK and Europe it would be an absurd claim for anyone to say that Christianity in Europe was just as big a threat as radical Islam … anyone making that claim is either utterly deluded and not interested in actual facts or actual evidence, or else they are just monumental liars (eg many fundamentalist Muslims often make such claims ... if you ask Islamic fundamentalist activists who was responsible for 9-11 they will typically tell you it was a plot between George Bush, the CIA and MOSSAD ... and if you ask those jihadist-supporting Muslims in the UK who was responsible for the London Tube bombings they will often tell you that it was done by Tony Blair & the UK government and that the 4 Muslims who did of course carry out the attack, were just scapegoats who had nothing at all to to do with it and who's passports and credit cards had been planted at scenes). And millions of Muslims all around the world actually believe that (they believe what the militant jihadists say ... they want to believe that, they prefer to believe what radical Islam says rather than what the BBC or other responsible press/media reports).

Last edited by IanS; 11th June 2019 at 01:22 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 01:23 AM   #444
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Yes I will enthusiastically put my hand up as an anti-theism dude. Not anti-theist however. Those poor deluded guys need our help to nurse them out.
So, again your only intellectual contribution is trying to redefine words?
antitheist

also anti-theist, "one opposed to belief in the existence of a god," 1813; see anti- + theist. Related: Antitheistic.
Frankly that may have passed for intellectual in kindergarten.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 01:34 AM   #445
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
@IanS
It may help your case if it weren't based on sensationalist hyperbole. Hundereds of thousands a year dying in terror attacks? Seriously? How far did you have to reach up the ass to pull that one out?

Because official records say that for example in 2017 the number was about 18k worldwide, and the vast majority of them in the middle east, especially places like Iraq and Syria. You know, out of the reach of whatever anti-Islam legislation one could pass in the EU or UK.

Also it's on the decline even without doing anything special about the Islam.

In Europe, where dumbass nationalists like the UKIP are making a big fuss, the number of deaths per year in religion-motivated attacks was like this.

2015: 17 attacks, 150 deaths
2016: 13 attacks, 135 deaths
2017: 33 attacks, 62 deaths

Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/e...hs-and-arrests

And again this is the WHOLE of Europe, not just the UK or Germany or wherever those dumbasses feel like they're oh so threatened by the Islam. Also it's not only the Islam, but also includes attacks by Xians against the Islam. But even if you blamed them all on Muslims, it's FAR from the picture the fear-mongers are painting.

Notice the decline even there, without needing to implement any special policies against the Islam?

No of course you don't. It's easier to seem to have a case when you can just make up hundreds of thousands, or whatever BS needed, amirite?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 11th June 2019 at 01:45 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 02:35 AM   #446
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
Also, let's put those numbers in perspective, and why the quip about the neighbour's cat being more dangerous wasn't JUST a joke.

I can't find solid numbers for the EU, but in the US according to the CDC the number of animal-related deaths amounts to roughly 5 per 10 million people. About a fifth or so by dog. Ok, so maybe it's a dog not a cat that you should be afraid of.

Assuming that the numbers for Europe are similar enough -- although considering the vast numbers of stray dogs in Eastern Europe, I'd expect them to be actually higher, but let's go with the known number -- the total population of EU is 742 million. Which means that in 2017 you were literally about 20% more likely to be killed by someone's dog than by any religiously motivated nutter.

So, you know, if you're looking for something to be scared of, now that's an idea.

Note that that is only including being outright killed in an attack. That does not include stuff like dying of some flesh eating bacteria or blood poisoning from a cat scratch or bite. Nor the hypothesis that a lot of those crazy cat lady suicides could be because of toxoplasmosis from the cats. So the threat from those crazy fundamentalist pets could be much higher. We really should do something about it
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 02:47 AM   #447
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,767
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Yes, they need rescuing from themselves, right? We need to free them from their savagery er I mean religion. All they need is a bit of white colonialism er I mean education and everything will be fine.
Strawman much?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 07:49 AM   #448
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,367
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
But Han's, the West is not doing that. And you must surely know that. And nobody here is arguing for that.

Western democracies are not targeting Islam as a religion. They are not passing laws to make religious belief in Islam an offence. And nobody here is arguing that Islam in particular (as distinct from Christianity or other religions) should be criminalised or persecuted just because it's not Christianity.

However, what western democracies have been forced to face up to, is the undoubted fact that Islamic religious believers in general (that's over a billion people worldwide), do contain within their midst a very large number of people (several hundred thousand at least) who are so militant in the practice of their daily religion (ie the beliefs that are guiding their entire lives in everything that they do each day), that they do unarguably pose an enormous and very direct threat to anyone and everyone outside of Islamic religion. And lets be honest & clear about this; it's not just a “threat” of doing something, it is countless acts of very deliberate mass murder against anyone who they regard as insufficiently Islamic.

It would be criminally insane negligence for any democratic government to ignore that, or to treat it as no more of a problem than Christian evangelists in the USA (or elsewhere, but they are overwhelmingly located in the USA) who harass people on the streets or protest loudly and disruptively outside abortion clinics etc.

Yes, we all know that Christian fundamentalists in the USA (and sometimes elsewhere) occasionally get seriously out of hand and commit isolated physical attacks on such people as staff at abortion clinics. And in the USA that can be especially dangerous because so many people there are allowed to carry loaded guns (but that's a completely different subject/problem of gun control in the USA). And we all know that Christianity (again most notably in the USA, but also anywhere else around the world) is a huge negative force in any society where it tries to persuade (or actually force) schools to teach creationism instead of science and evolution, tries to get all sorts of tax concessions and financial aid/grants, and tries to influence local and national politics etc. Any honest educated person should want all that stopped. But that's a million miles from being the directly lethal threat that fundamentalist Islam is engaged in right now when it's waging worldwide terrorist-style wars killing hundreds of thousands of people …

… there is absolutely no comparison at all between those two positions.

On top of which, Islam also pursues all those same advantages and favours that Christianity does. For example in the UK (and afaik elsewhere in the EU), Islam also gets all sorts of tax concessions and financial aid to build Mosques & to open Islamic religious schools. And it also organises protests against all manner of Christian or secular or political things that it does not agree with. In fact over the last 20 to 30 years or so there has been a big increase in the number of Muslims putting themselves up for election as MP's either in local or national government, and quite a lot of those elected Muslim representatives are particularly concerned with Islamic issues such as attempts to have Sharia Law more officially recognised rather than UK democratic law.

I'm not especially criticising those UK Muslims who put themselves forward as candidates in elections. In a way, that's a good thing. Or, it should have been a good thing. Except that in a democracy it's also an opportunity for individuals with more ulterior religious and divisive motives to get themselves into a position of official power. But I'm not making a distinction between overtly Christian political candidates vs overtly Islamic candidates - I want both of them stopped, or rather I want their religious agendas to be removed from the politics. But the point is that Islam does all of that just as much as Christianity does.

We all know about the US case of the Dover Trial in which US Christians were dishonestly attempting to get creationism taught in US schools, but more recently a milder version of that was also found to be happening in some UK schools in Muslim areas around Birmingham (UK midlands), where the teachers themselves were predominately Muslim and where they were very deliberately downplaying the evidence for evolution in biology classes and also segregating the girls to be taught separately. Even after they were caught in repeated inspections, the school governors who were themselves all local Muslims, still tried to argue that they should actually teach that way to Muslim children (almost all the children in those schools were Muslim). And just as an update to that - after those schools were forced (by law) to adhere properly and honestly to the national curriculum, and after several immediate inspections showed they had changed their teaching to comply with the national education laws/standards, further inspections a year or two later showed that those same schools had again started to teach all the same things they were first sanctioned for!

So, I'm just pointing out that organised Islam tries to do all those same things that organised Christianity does, and it does try everything possible to get every concession and every possible special ruling for itself … Christianity is not alone in doing that.

But not everything that concerns people in this world is equally serious or equally dangerous. Not all opinions are equally valid. Not all claims of evidence are equally valid. The claimed evidence of creationists against evolution is not just as valid as the scientific evidence in favour of evolution … in the UK and Europe it would be an absurd claim for anyone to say that Christianity in Europe was just as big a threat as radical Islam … anyone making that claim is either utterly deluded and not interested in actual facts or actual evidence, or else they are just monumental liars (eg many fundamentalist Muslims often make such claims ... if you ask Islamic fundamentalist activists who was responsible for 9-11 they will typically tell you it was a plot between George Bush, the CIA and MOSSAD ... and if you ask those jihadist-supporting Muslims in the UK who was responsible for the London Tube bombings they will often tell you that it was done by Tony Blair & the UK government and that the 4 Muslims who did of course carry out the attack, were just scapegoats who had nothing at all to to do with it and who's passports and credit cards had been planted at scenes). And millions of Muslims all around the world actually believe that (they believe what the militant jihadists say ... they want to believe that, they prefer to believe what radical Islam says rather than what the BBC or other responsible press/media reports).
What I find interesting about this post is that you use a lot of numbers and statistics and cite not a single source or study.
I seem to recall someone taking me to task for that?
So, can you back it all up?

Three more things I disagree with you about, but those are philosophical disagreements, so I doubt we will ever agree.
1: Just because the west (and russia) did not INTENTIONALLY set out to turn large parts of the middle east into the lawless chaos that exists today does not absolve our governments from at least a part of the blame for the results. The road to hell and all that.

2: Related to the first, it doesn't really matter what the western governments (and russia) intended, but it does matter how it is perceived by the people most affected and vulnerable to recruitment as terrorists. Admitting that we made mistakes and at least attempting to amend some of them with actual money rather than words would probably go a long way to remove the grip fundamentalists have.

3: You keep claiming that christians are not a threat because they don't use bombs. I still see this differently. The laws in Poland/Hungary stifling free press and an independent judicial system came from nationalist/christian parties. The rightwing parties coming to political power in Europe, who all would like to abolish freedom of religion and flirt with lots of ideas from fascism all proudly proclaim their christian heritage. And all those parties come to power by propagating fear of the 'immigrants/muslims' far in excess of the actual influence of muslims.
So while you claim to be wary of a religion that has virtually no political or social influence in Europe, I feel far more threatened by those abusing that fear to remove liberties I feel are important. Even if they do not use bombs to change society.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 09:47 AM   #449
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,634
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Am not aware of any prioritised list I created. Which post did I put it on?
I have already been disruptive, I just don't agree with certain posters, likely not you, say radical Islam is the greatest threat to ...
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 12:45 PM   #450
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 10,182
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
There is already a word for that: anti-theism.
Yes, but pardon my belaboring it, the point was the ease with which rejection of dogma may be construed as bias against its adherents. That is, the ease with which the term Islamophobia can be, and often is, misused, potentially as an unfair tactic or even slur of its own.

In the broadest terms, all political and religious thought is fair game and subject to scrutiny, and is owed no unfair pass or thumb on any scale.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 02:21 PM   #451
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Yes, they need rescuing from themselves, right? We need to free them from their savagery er I mean religion. All they need is a bit of white colonialism er I mean education and everything will be fine.

No I have not been advocating white colonialism, is that something you are proposing?

I think I have been quite clear I am about relieving religion inspired violence in our Western societies. I am suggesting education as a means to doing this. Teaching about religion as a historical subject, and discouraging the teaching of any one religion as the true one.

In order to achieve the above, we must try and get the teaching done in secular schools. The spin off from this is that kids will be interacting with other kids, from different religious backgrounds. The advantages of this would seem obvious.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 02:41 PM   #452
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
So, again your only intellectual contribution is trying to redefine words?
antitheist

also anti-theist, "one opposed to belief in the existence of a god," 1813; see anti- + theist. Related: Antitheistic.
Frankly that may have passed for intellectual in kindergarten.

Bit of attention to detail would help Hans.

You see it is not the hyphen between the anti and theist, but the 'm' instead of the 't' at the end of the word, that makes the difference. That is what makes anti-theist, a description of someone who is anti the followers of a religion, as distinct from ant-theism, which is defining someone who is just anti the religion itself.

Now I have family members who are head over heels 'born again' nut jobs. I don't hate them as people, but do dislike the religious baloney they adhere to with a passion. I hope this clears it up for you.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 02:44 PM   #453
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
I have already been disruptive, I just don't agree with certain posters, likely not you, say radical Islam is the greatest threat to ...

A gracious bowing out ..... commendable. No, I don't think I have used 'greatest threat' in my description of Islam.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 03:33 PM   #454
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Yes, but pardon my belaboring it, the point was the ease with which rejection of dogma may be construed as bias against its adherents. That is, the ease with which the term Islamophobia can be, and often is, misused, potentially as an unfair tactic or even slur of its own.

In the broadest terms, all political and religious thought is fair game and subject to scrutiny, and is owed no unfair pass or thumb on any scale.

Right on Hlafordlaes!

Strange how you can see it so clearly but someone like Hans cannot.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 04:13 PM   #455
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Bit of attention to detail would help Hans.
Yes, it would help if you paid attention to what was actually written in what you quoted:
antitheist

also anti-theist, "one opposed to belief in the existence of a god," 1813; see anti- + theist. Related: Antitheistic.
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
You see it is not the hyphen between the anti and theist, but the 'm' instead of the 't' at the end of the word, that makes the difference.
Just as well that the definition was with a "t" at the end, then and it was not about the hyphen. Again, if you had actually READ what you quoted, you'd have seen it says it means the same with or without a hyphen.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
That is what makes anti-theist, a description of someone who is anti the followers of a religion, as distinct from ant-theism, which is defining someone who is just anti the religion itself.
No it's not. In fact you're the first I've ever heard coming up with that nonsense redefinition of what it means.

Words, mate. They mean stuff.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 11th June 2019 at 04:15 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 04:24 PM   #456
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Yes, but pardon my belaboring it, the point was the ease with which rejection of dogma may be construed as bias against its adherents. That is, the ease with which the term Islamophobia can be, and often is, misused, potentially as an unfair tactic or even slur of its own.

In the broadest terms, all political and religious thought is fair game and subject to scrutiny, and is owed no unfair pass or thumb on any scale.
Well, speaking in the broadest terms, of course. But when what's being peddled is literally fear of the Islam, I don't see how it's anything but literal Islamophobia.

Now if someone wants to discuss the relative merits or faults of the Quran, I'm all up for that. But that's not what this ever seems to be about. I hardly ever see the Islam's detractors framing the debate in terms of what the exact sura and verse number say. It's either stuff that the Quran doesn't actually SAY (e.g., Bill Maher's "putting women in beekeper suits") or gross exaggerations of the terror scare (see the supposed hundreds of thousands of deaths in terror attacks every year in this very thread.)
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 11th June 2019 at 04:36 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 04:29 PM   #457
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Right on Hlafordlaes!

Strange how you can see it so clearly but someone like Hans cannot.
Maybe because starting from the first message you've been claiming a comparison, and now you lie about how it totally isn't? Here, catch, the closing words of the first message in the thread: "It makes the most fanatical of Christian devotees look limp by comparison." I highlighted the operative word there.

And it's been comparisons ever since. Except apparently only those going the way you want them are allowed.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 04:52 PM   #458
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Yes, but pardon my belaboring it, the point was the ease with which rejection of dogma may be construed as bias against its adherents. That is, the ease with which the term Islamophobia can be, and often is, misused, potentially as an unfair tactic or even slur of its own.

In the broadest terms, all political and religious thought is fair game and subject to scrutiny, and is owed no unfair pass or thumb on any scale.
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Right on Hlafordlaes!

Strange how you can see it so clearly but someone like Hans cannot.
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Maybe because starting from the first message you've been claiming a comparison, and now you lie about how it totally isn't? Here, catch, the closing words of the first message in the thread: "It makes the most fanatical of Christian devotees look limp by comparison." I highlighted the operative word there.

And it's been comparisons ever since. Except apparently only those going the way you want them are allowed.

Pardon me but I cannot see how you are answering Hlafordlaes or my post here.

Never mind, I can see you are struggling here because you now turn to personal insult by implying I am lying. Take care now and watch out for that neighbour's cat you are threatened by.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 05:58 PM   #459
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,995
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
No I have not been advocating white colonialism, is that something you are proposing?

I think I have been quite clear I am about relieving religion inspired violence in our Western societies. I am suggesting education as a means to doing this. Teaching about religion as a historical subject, and discouraging the teaching of any one religion as the true one.

In order to achieve the above, we must try and get the teaching done in secular schools. The spin off from this is that kids will be interacting with other kids, from different religious backgrounds. The advantages of this would seem obvious.
You've been using the language of colonialism. They're the victims of their own religion. You want to teach them the ways of the atheist. Give them the benefits of Western non-theism. The parallels are easy to draw.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Bit of attention to detail would help Hans.

You see it is not the hyphen between the anti and theist, but the 'm' instead of the 't' at the end of the word, that makes the difference. That is what makes anti-theist, a description of someone who is anti the followers of a religion, as distinct from ant-theism, which is defining someone who is just anti the religion itself.

Now I have family members who are head over heels 'born again' nut jobs. I don't hate them as people, but do dislike the religious baloney they adhere to with a passion. I hope this clears it up for you.
Someone who practices antitheism is an antitheist.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 07:09 PM   #460
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Pardon me but I cannot see how you are answering Hlafordlaes or my post here.
Well, I guess it must be a hard life, if you forget everything you've said within hours

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Never mind, I can see you are struggling here because you now turn to personal insult by implying I am lying. Take care now and watch out for that neighbour's cat you are threatened by.
No, the point is that you have been arguing dishonestly all through the thread, and I have actually shown how and about what. Of course, you ignored all that and just stuck to taking things out of context. Plus just a sprinkle of playing the victim card instead of addressing the actual points. Like you do above. I'm sure your coleagues in the kindergarten are amazed by your intellectual skills

Well, I guess it beats actually having a point, right?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 11th June 2019 at 07:19 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 07:33 PM   #461
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
You've been using the language of colonialism. They're the victims of their own religion. You want to teach them the ways of the atheist. Give them the benefits of Western non-theism. The parallels are easy to draw.
Well, I'd say it's the more general language of being condescending. It has been used to justify colonialism, but as I said in a previous message, it's also the more general language of bigotry. There's a time and place for "just kill them all" rhetoric and then there's more civilized audiences where one uses contempt and a 'saving them from themselves' and/or 'for their own good' rhetoric.

And actually not just nowadays. It actually predates notions like the mission to civilize and white man's burden by more than 2000 years.

E.g., you can find it in Aristotle about the barbarians up north, and more generally his justification of slavery. See, it's for their own good. Why, left to their own devices, they can barely take care of themselves.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 07:48 PM   #462
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,995
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, I'd say it's the more general language of being condescending. It has been used to justify colonialism, but as I said in a previous message, it's also the more general language of bigotry. There's a time and place for "just kill them all" rhetoric and then there's more civilized audiences where one uses contempt and a 'saving them from themselves' and/or 'for their own good' rhetoric.

And actually not just nowadays. It actually predates notions like the mission to civilize and white man's burden by more than 2000 years.

E.g., you can find it in Aristotle about the barbarians up north, and more generally his justification of slavery. See, it's for their own good. Why, left to their own devices, they can barely take care of themselves.
That's a good point.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 01:08 AM   #463
Safe-Keeper
Philosopher
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,342
This discussion is still hindered by how certain people have decided from the get-go that the other side is racist and bigotted, and thus doesn't listen to what they actually say. See my 1930's Germany analogy. Case in point:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
3. Finally, "oh but they're victims" has been used by just about every flavour of bigotry in history. In fact, just about anyone whose listeners might find it objectionable to listen to outright hatred, disguises it in some paternal-autocratic argument that they just want to save them from themselves or from someone using them or such. E.g., antisemites argue that Jews are just deceived by Satan or their rabbis and need to be somehow saved, misogynists argue that women are just used and deceived by feminism / lefties / whatever, etc. They're not proposing to OPPRESS the women, see? They want to SAVE them by putting them back in the kitchen It's not something that makes it totally unbiased, it's mainstream biased talk.
Just... seriously, what? Let us put on our Godwin goggles and check on the pub life of 1938 once again.


Thomas, over his pint and bubble and squeak: No, James, of course when I say that I'm worried because "the Germans" have seized the Sudetenland and are now threatening Poland, I'm talking about the Nazi regime. In fact, I care very much about the average Germans.

James, sitting down with his fish and chips: oh, all bigots say that! Now the Germans are these lesser, naïve people who elected the Nazis because they don't know what's best for them, unlike us noble Englishmen! This is just like when we colonised Africa to save the savages from themselves! If they want to live in a Nazi country, that's their choice, and we have no right to judge them! Blimey, how incredibly ethnocentric of you!


Can we no longer point out that someone is oppressed, now? Am I also being bigoted and condescending if I say that I have nothing against Palestinians, and sympahtize with how they are ruled by an oppressive and murderous regime? Or the Chinese or North Koreans? Am I then as bad as the colonialists who wanted to bring civilisation and Christ to the Negroes in Africa?

Whenever I observe someone use arguments and rhetoric in a certain setting that they would never use otherwise -- did you ever talk about the genocide in Myanmar and go "oh, but we were like that too 500 years ago" or "oh, but we Europeans throughout history have a far higher body count", or "oh, but I've been to that part of Asia, and most people there are friendly and not at all genocidal" -- that's a sign they aren't really taking the subject seriously and thinking through it as much as they probably should.
__________________
In choosing to support humanitarian organizations, it's best to choose those that do not have "militant wings" (Mycroft, 2013)
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 01:17 AM   #464
Safe-Keeper
Philosopher
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,342
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, I'd say it's the more general language of being condescending. It has been used to justify colonialism, but as I said in a previous message, it's also the more general language of bigotry. There's a time and place for "just kill them all" rhetoric and then there's more civilized audiences where one uses contempt and a 'saving them from themselves' and/or 'for their own good' rhetoric.

And actually not just nowadays. It actually predates notions like the mission to civilize and white man's burden by more than 2000 years.

E.g., you can find it in Aristotle about the barbarians up north, and more generally his justification of slavery. See, it's for their own good. Why, left to their own devices, they can barely take care of themselves.
Possibly, possibly not. It still remains that this is one of those problems of discussing issues related to things like migration and islamism, though. The real discussion never starts because people are so terrified of coming across as racist that you have to be incredibly careful when choosing which words and phrases to use, and even then, people just assume you're a racist bigot anyway and start posting ridiculously defensive stuff like "oh, but we whites have done horrible things too!".

This happens even on this forum, where we otherwise have no problem using very strong language when we discuss topics like Trump, woo, homeopathy, conspiracy theorists, and just about every topic we discuss. It's just in debates on islamism and migration that you suddenly feel like you're walking on eggshells.

It reminds me of a Nemi comic I once read where Cyan is typing a looong social media comment to the nature of "note that I'm not advocating killing all humans, I have no problem with keeping pets, I don't think animals should have the same rights as humans", etc., and Nemi walks in asking her how her post about animal welfare is going. She replies "oh, I haven't gotten that far, I'm still working on the disclaimer".
__________________
In choosing to support humanitarian organizations, it's best to choose those that do not have "militant wings" (Mycroft, 2013)
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 01:40 AM   #465
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
BS duly noted, but we weren't talking about a genocide being good or bad, we were talking about rethoric about 'saving people from THEMSELVES', or imposing something on them 'for their own good'. Unless you want to say that the Rohingya muslims just decided to kill themselves in Myanmar, or that the Sudeten invaded themselves, that's not an analogy, it's just BS rationalization.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 12th June 2019 at 01:46 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 08:58 AM   #466
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,634
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
A gracious bowing out ..... commendable. No, I don't think I have used 'greatest threat' in my description of Islam.
Correct, I do not believe you have
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 10:24 AM   #467
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,662
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
2015: 17 attacks, 150 deaths
2016: 13 attacks, 135 deaths
2017: 33 attacks, 62 deaths
I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the reporting standards changed between 2016 and 2017. There's no way attacks doubled and deaths halved like that, unless the definition of "attacks" was expanded to include a lot of stuff previously considered inconsequential or unrelated.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 10:26 AM   #468
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,662
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Strawman much?
I think it's a reasonably accurate indictment of Thor 2's position. So, not much strawman at all, really.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 01:02 PM   #469
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the reporting standards changed between 2016 and 2017. There's no way attacks doubled and deaths halved like that, unless the definition of "attacks" was expanded to include a lot of stuff previously considered inconsequential or unrelated.
Nope, nothing changed in how they're counted. It's just that if you look at the lists of attacks, the definition of religiously-motivated attacks always included stuff like some guy tries to drive a van into some Muslims in England, only manages to hit a tree. Or some crazy dude in Germany throws a molotov cocktail at some Syrian refugees building, nobody dies because to his surprise people have invented fire extinguishers in the meantime. Etc.

People seem to imagine that every terror attack involves some massive bomb going off in a crowd, but the truth is that most of the religiously motivated attacks -- which is really what gets lumped in that list -- are by lone loonies who couldn't make a working bomb if their life depended on it.

Also bear in mind that what you see in that time is a sharp drop in attacks funded by ISIS and the like. In fact, after the 2015 spike, which was largely done by ISIS guys who knew what they were doing, ISIS has been mostly leaving the EU alone, with the exception of Spain.

Most of what was actually on the rise in Europe in that three year period were actually attacks by far right loonies AGAINST the Muslims. And lone loonies at that, not some organized terror organization. You have stuff like some guy who writes whole tomes worth of essentially love letters, idolizing the guy who killed a bunch of Muslims in Norway (no, really, that kind of idolizing for that one guy is more common than you'd think among these loonies) then goes and does some half-assed job. Or just goes and beats up some girl in a scarf on the street. (Because, apparently, nothing says "master race" like the occasional needing three skinheads to beat up a 14 year old girl for wearing a scarf.)

People who think that there's a mile long list of ISIS cars exploding left right and centre all over Europe, are going to be disappointed, really.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 12th June 2019 at 01:14 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 01:29 PM   #470
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
You've been using the language of colonialism. They're the victims of their own religion. You want to teach them the ways of the atheist. Give them the benefits of Western non-theism. The parallels are easy to draw.
So? By using "the language of colonialism" I negate everything else I have said about supporting muslims, like endorsing Ahern's actions in Christchurch, and the Eggboy's generosity.

What I am suggesting will also help undermine the Western theists as well you know. Perhaps you missed that.

Quote:
Someone who practices antitheism is an antitheist.
Oh, very good arth. Did you come up with that by yourself?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 01:35 PM   #471
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, I guess it must be a hard life, if you forget everything you've said within hours
Huh?

Quote:
No, the point is that you have been arguing dishonestly all through the thread, and I have actually shown how and about what. Of course, you ignored all that and just stuck to taking things out of context. Plus just a sprinkle of playing the victim card instead of addressing the actual points. Like you do above. I'm sure your coleagues in the kindergarten are amazed by your intellectual skills

Well, I guess it beats actually having a point, right?
More insults. This is not looking good Hans.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 01:48 PM   #472
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
Possibly, possibly not. It still remains that this is one of those problems of discussing issues related to things like migration and islamism, though. The real discussion never starts because people are so terrified of coming across as racist that you have to be incredibly careful when choosing which words and phrases to use, and even then, people just assume you're a racist bigot anyway and start posting ridiculously defensive stuff like "oh, but we whites have done horrible things too!".

This happens even on this forum, where we otherwise have no problem using very strong language when we discuss topics like Trump, woo, homeopathy, conspiracy theorists, and just about every topic we discuss. It's just in debates on islamism and migration that you suddenly feel like you're walking on eggshells.

It reminds me of a Nemi comic I once read where Cyan is typing a looong social media comment to the nature of "note that I'm not advocating killing all humans, I have no problem with keeping pets, I don't think animals should have the same rights as humans", etc., and Nemi walks in asking her how her post about animal welfare is going. She replies "oh, I haven't gotten that far, I'm still working on the disclaimer".
Yes well said Safe-Keeper.

I see you immediately drew a response of BS from Hans, (twice in fact), and weak defensive remarks that were off your topic.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 02:07 PM   #473
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
@ arthwollipot,

Just yesterday, in the local shopping centre, I saw a woman wearing a full Niqab. I have seen this just a few times before, although the much less imposing Hijab or the like is quite common. I cannot recall ever seeing a full Burka worn in Australia.

Now you must come across this down there in Canberra I imagine. How do you feel when you see a woman dressed in a Niqab, and peering out through that slit. Does it stir any emotions in you?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 02:53 PM   #474
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
I've seen one around here a couple of times. TBH the only issue I would wish solved is the issue of wearing a mask in public. Most of the states in the USA have such laws, and frankly I think that's one thing the EU should learn from the USA.

That said, at the risk of repeating myself, the requirement to wear any kind of mask is not actually in the Quran. Nor do most muslims around here wear one, seein' as the majority of them are Turkish. It's an issue of regional culture, rather than something "Muslim".
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 05:28 PM   #475
metacristi
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
No I have not been advocating white colonialism, is that something you are proposing?

I think I have been quite clear I am about relieving religion inspired violence in our Western societies. I am suggesting education as a means to doing this. Teaching about religion as a historical subject, and discouraging the teaching of any one religion as the true one.

In order to achieve the above, we must try and get the teaching done in secular schools. The spin off from this is that kids will be interacting with other kids, from different religious backgrounds. The advantages of this would seem obvious.

Well some people never understand that the real bigotry is to fabricate / repeat these cheap 'colonialist' and 'islamophobia' accusations en vogue today Remember me of the old Stalinist komissars...Some enlightenment for them is here: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/An+Imagi...-9781509530663

In other orders of ideas I agree with the education suggestion but without a real criticism of Islam at academic level in the West* I think we are still seriosly short to prevent at least an important erosion of modern values, if muslims ever gain political/military/economical power in the future...And definitely no chance to see an islamic equivalent to the 'Jesus-proto-zealot / Christianity inherently violent' research program (already existent in the 18th century in Christian Europe by the way, in spite of its huge problems) coming from inside the islamic world**....


* that is the political correctness / cultural relativism taken to the extreme of today must go, the big diffrences between religions and cultures should finally be taken seriously in account

** I think that anyone rational will agree at least that a research program like 'Muhammad, the desert bandit / Islam inherently violent' is defensible rationally; I'm sure that there are enough people in the islamic world today who would like to defend it if we ever create a climate where this become possible, without any fear...i.o.w. Islam must be open to the same level of rational criticism we expose the other religions
__________________
“It is often said that knowledge is power, but it might be more correct to say that [critical] thinking is power.” - Stuart Sim

ibn Warraq - Why I am not a Muslim

My review of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book 'Heretic'

Last edited by metacristi; 12th June 2019 at 06:01 PM.
metacristi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 05:58 PM   #476
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,995
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
So? By using "the language of colonialism" I negate everything else I have said about supporting muslims, like endorsing Ahern's actions in Christchurch, and the Eggboy's generosity.
And the white colonialists said similar things about the Africans too. That doesn't mean they didn't try to destroy a rich culture and lifestyle in favour of what they perceived were better conditions.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
What I am suggesting will also help undermine the Western theists as well you know. Perhaps you missed that.
No, but it's irrelevant to the thread since you made it specifically about Islam.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Oh, very good arth. Did you come up with that by yourself?
No, the English Language did.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 06:16 PM   #477
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,995
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
@ arthwollipot,

Just yesterday, in the local shopping centre, I saw a woman wearing a full Niqab. I have seen this just a few times before, although the much less imposing Hijab or the like is quite common. I cannot recall ever seeing a full Burka worn in Australia.

Now you must come across this down there in Canberra I imagine. How do you feel when you see a woman dressed in a Niqab, and peering out through that slit. Does it stir any emotions in you?
Yes, I see people. They're people. What emotion do you expect me to have when seeing people? Pity? Fear?

They're just people.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 01:30 AM   #478
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,571
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
My soap box is labelled there are other issues much more pressing than radical islam.

Well first of all - what you are saying is that because you don't personally expect to be the victim of of a terrorist attack, you do not actually care what happens to other people (to the many thousands of others who get slaughtered and horribly injured in the vast number of such attacks that have already taken place and the even greater number of plots that are active at any time) ...

... as for other issues that anyone might think are "much more pressing" than Islamic terrorism - firstly that's a completely different subject and not an argument here at all, ie just because a government & the nations courts have to deal with hundreds of different issues, that has absolutely no bearing on the fact that all democratic governments all over the world totally disagree with your opinion ... they are using "facts" rather that your mere belief or opinion, and they most definitely do treat this as an extremely serious problem which has required absolutely enormous resources from the West just to keep it within any sort of control at all.

The facts are all entirely against you, and all governments and all expert anti-terrorist and security advisors etc. completely disagree with you.

At some point you have to stop believing in un-evidenced conspiracy theories and start admitting that your government and all the various technical, legal and academic authorities are not trying to lie to you or to harm your personal freedoms etc. ... they are trying to deal with a very very serious problem indeed which is presently costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people ... and just re. that number of deaths - in the London Tube Bombings, apart from 52 killed, there were over 700 injured, and similarly in the Madrid train bombing apart from 193 killed there were also around 2000 people injured … so on that sort of basis, if all around the world we have now had about 300,000 people killed in Islamic terrorist wars and terrorist attacks, then we are probably also talking about well over 1-million people who have been injured (many of them very seriously injured) in these attacks …

… and you don't think that's extremely serious??



Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
one to point out is the Saudi government and it's inherent wahabism, it is 'mainstream' and always seems to get a pass, despite the great evil they perpetrate

Unfortunately, very often in politics, politicians in the West have to deal with foreign governments and individuals that they really do not like. Not many politicians and governmnets in Europe like Donald Trump & his administarion, but we have to try to deal with him and keep dealing with the USA. And yes we do know that politicians in the West are not all saints either. But on the whole they are much better than many of the quite despotic dictatorships (both military & religious) that we have seen in many places around the world.

Before 9-11, the West was dealing with people like Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Gaddafi in Libya, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and for many decades all sorts of dodgy leaders in Russia & the Soviet Union, and no doubt also dozens of other leaders in dozens of other countries. Western politicians did not like all those people, and they did not like what their regimes were doing … but unfortunately they are (or have been) in power in those countries, and in the end we just have to to make the best of the situation & try to deal with them.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 01:39 AM   #479
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,571
repeat post (whoops).
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 02:10 AM   #480
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
... as for other issues that anyone might think are "much more pressing" than Islamic terrorism - firstly that's a completely different subject and not an argument here at all,
BS. Resources being finite, and issues like human rights having to be balanced, we deal with problems in order of their importance. If whatever bogeman triggers your delusional fears is not high on the list, then yes, we have more important things to do than appease unfounded fears.

As Dara O'Briain put it, "Well, so ******* what? Zombies are at an all-time low level, but the fear of zombies could be incredibly high. It doesn’t mean you have to have government policies to deal with the fear of zombies."

Same with your bogeymen, really. If the actual threat is ridiculously low in Europe, as I've shown with official numbers, then you don't get to hijack the government and everyone else's tax money just because you're scared. Mommy may be coming over to make you feel safe every time you think there's a bogeyman under your bed, but I'm not your mommy. Grow a pair, deal with it like everyone else.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
ie just because a government & the nations courts have to deal with hundreds of different issues, that has absolutely no bearing on the fact that all democratic governments all over the world totally disagree with your opinion ... they are using "facts" rather that your mere belief or opinion, and they most definitely do treat this as an extremely serious problem which has required absolutely enormous resources from the West just to keep it within any sort of control at all.
Yes, I'd rather have them deal with the FACTS, not with whatever delusional bullcrap you pull out of the ass to scare yourself. I haven't seen any actual statistics or studies from you, to support that fearmongering. And I notice that you still ignore the actual numbers even when I provided them for you. All your argument has consistently been based on just postulating hyperbolic BS and expecting them to be taken as "fact" just because you said so. Well, guess what? Belief held in spite of evidence provided to the contrary has a name: delusion. And, sorry, your bogeyman delusions are NOT facts that governments should act upon.

In fact, the only solution I can recommend for those is a good psychiatrist.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 13th June 2019 at 02:15 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.