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 29th April 2019, 01:45 AM   #41
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 20,681
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Sure many things have been done by the USA and others in the West, that should not have been done. This is undeniable, but bleating about it does not solve the problem. What is to be done now?
Get the US and 'others in the West' to stop doing it?
Captain_Swoop 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 29th April 2019, 12:49 PM   #42
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,677
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Does formal political/religious doctrine have anything at all to do with personal/social behavior? Is it a source of social approval of a given set of predilections and attitudes? Does it shape what is considered right and wrong, permissible and not so? What disgusts, and invites revulsion?

Not usually. Most of the time, humans are amygdala-driven emo freaks who rationalize like champions; the smarter, the better. Moreover, humans, as social animals, use the theory of mind to manage social life and communicate; there is an implicit recognition of a "there" being "there" in each of us. Taking another life is a violent denial of our recognizably common humanity; most people are reluctant to do so.

Observably, in almost every case of an act of terrorism, the perpetrators explain the motives for their actions, the driving narrative and the truths that enable them to kill.

Point 1: Believers/Nonbelievers are humans; they are like everyone else, absent other factors. Nice enough folks. "Would never have guessed."
Point 2: Deliberate, purposeful behaviors based on politic, religion, or some general driving narrative, such as white nationalism, take on the moral codes thereof. These moral codes grant/deny common humanity, shape what is/isn't allowed.
Point 3: Observation: The narratives repeated by terrorists/dictators/Torquemadas include the memes that are used to directly dehumanize or severely judge others, authorizing their execution.

The homework, then, would be to examine all politics, faiths, and social narratives to see what memes they serve to their adherents.... And I'll stop there, because we don't do homework on ISF; we defend the amygdala.

So, a plague on all the houses of Abraham, the would-be baby-killer and patriach, for when men believe they rub shoulders with the gods, they lose their minds.
As soon as there is an ideology that allows individuals to be subordinate to a "greater" atrocities can be justified.

The closer we remain to basic empathy, the better.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 29th April 2019, 02:20 PM   #43
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
For constructive solutions?

1: Secularization in the west, especially forbidding religiously founded education. This will at least severely limit home grown terrorists. But the likelihood of that happening is near 0 as the christian majorities in all these countries will block that
2: Removal of tax exemption for religions, but again, that will be blocked by the Christians
3: Force a compromise in the palestine-israely conflict that actually is at least partially acceptable to the muslim majority. This should most likely include partition of Jerusalem and reversal of (part) of the colonization process. Veto chance by the US 100%
4: Stop using so much drugs which fund the Taliban. Yeah right.
5: Stop using oil and fully switch to alternative methods, so the governments funding the largest terrorist organizations simply can't do that anymore. Maybe 20 years or so? And that's optimistic.
6: In conjunction with 5, actually invest part of our wealth in the west back into the poorer regions of the world in a way that benefits the majority of people, not a select few, thus removing the resentment that radicalism currently can use. Again, that would take at least 2/3 generations AND slows growth in the west to benefit everyone, so that's like socialism/communism and will be vetoed by the US and most European populist movements.
7. Treat terrorists as individuals, don't tar everyone following their religion with the same brush.

It's easy to say there is no major christian terrorism at the moment, but that is not something inherent to christianity, but rather the fact that most christian countries are actually quite rich. But in poor countries things like the Army of the Lord happily spring up. And if you get told every day in most media that everyone following your, your parents and grandparents religion is a closet terrorist, that resentment gives a nice feeding ground to grow terrorists.

But given the current political situation in the world, I do not see that happening. In which case, its the price the west pays for its wealth and it's up to time I guess.

Thank you Lukraak_Sisser I have no argument with this apart from the last part. Sweden is showing us the way:

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2...s-free-schools

Quote:
The governing party in Sweden will propose ending the role of publicly-funded religious 'free' schools in its manifesto for the country's autumn general election.
And:

Quote:
Alastair Lichten, the NSS's education and schools officer, said: "We often hear that it's too hard to take on religious interests in our education system, but this is a reminder that it's both desirable and possible to roll back their influence. Politicians in the UK should take note."
__________________
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 29th April 2019, 02:34 PM   #44
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I find it strange that if you say the Troubles were a conflict between Roman catholics and protestants people are very quick to point out that it wasn't a "religious" conflict beacuse of x, y and z, yet when there is a conflict between Muslims they want to ignore history, discrimination, poverty and so on and simply say it is a religious conflict. Hardly anything in human behaviour is black and white, there are myriad of entangled reasons and so on behind every conflict, if we want to stop conflict we have to take the time to understand the conflict and not simply say "it's religion" as if that explains it all.

I don't deny that there is reason for some Muslims to hate Westerners when we consider what has happened in history. You however cannot dismiss that the hatred felt toward us by the Muslims is as a result of the teachings of Islam when you read:

"We will never stop hating you until you embrace Islam."

This is one of many reasons given for Islamic hatred listed in an edition of Dabiq.
__________________
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 29th April 2019, 10:11 PM   #45
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,370
And yet, for most of history relations between the muslim nations and the rest of the world were cordial.
In fact non-muslims were far more tolerated than different religions in non muslim nations.
So clearly that line can and was conveniently ignored for most of history.
Yet when the west started exploiting and intervening and supporting murderous regimes it was picked up.
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 29th April 2019, 11:21 PM   #46
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,002
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I don't deny that there is reason for some Muslims to hate Westerners when we consider what has happened in history. You however cannot dismiss that the hatred felt toward us by the Muslims is as a result of the teachings of Islam when you read:



"We will never stop hating you until you embrace Islam."



This is one of many reasons given for Islamic hatred listed in an edition of Dabiq.
To use the Troubles again, have you seen what the website of the former first minister of NI? You have to now use the Wayback archive as they've tried to brush it under the carpet, see https://web.archive.org/web/20080917...y.org/main.asp note the "5 reasons why Catholics are not Christians" and the rest of the spittle laden site. Was the Troubles a conflict between Catholics and protestants?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 29th April 2019, 11:33 PM   #47
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,089
Were all Irish and Northern Irish people responsible for the Troubles? Or just a minority?

I guarantee that a smaller minority of Muslims are terrorists than that. Muslims outnumber us - all of us - by some considerable degree. If they all wanted us dead, we'd be dead.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is online now   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 30th April 2019, 01:56 AM   #48
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,088
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I guarantee that a smaller minority of Muslims are terrorists than that. Muslims outnumber us - all of us - by some considerable degree. If they all wanted us dead, we'd be dead.
Australia has a majority (close to 90%) Muslim nation of almost 300 million people called Indonesia not far off its north-western shore. Invasion and forceful conversion is not on the cards.

Last edited by GDon; 30th April 2019 at 01:57 AM.
GDon 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 30th April 2019, 02:23 AM   #49
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: 2,769
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
And yet, for most of history relations between the muslim nations and the rest of the world were cordial.
Really? I'm not sure that's true.

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
In fact non-muslims were far more tolerated than different religions in non muslim nations.
If by that you mean that non-Muslims were tolerated in Muslim countries, then that's definitely not true.

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
So clearly that line can and was conveniently ignored for most of history.
Yet when the west started exploiting and intervening and supporting murderous regimes it was picked up.
Again, I really don't think this is true. There were and are plenty of home-grown murderous regimes in the Muslim world.
I think the growth of international travel and communication has had far more impact on the spread of intolerant and murderous versions of Islam than, say, a degree of western support for Saddam Hussein.
__________________
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 30th April 2019, 02:58 AM   #50
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,207
As mentioned, the real conflict is for the recognized leadership of All Muslims - and has been since the religion was first written down.
Islam never had schisms like Christianity, were you can simply ignore what a Pope or Patriarch says because you belong to a different confession.
And those seeking to become Caliph often didn't have any reservations about taking money and military aid from non-Muslims. Sometimes it worked for the Wet, sometimes it didn't.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza 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 30th April 2019, 12:26 PM   #51
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,458
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Australia has a majority (close to 90%) Muslim nation of almost 300 million people called Indonesia not far off its north-western shore. Invasion and forceful conversion is not on the cards.
Oh, I don't know about that. 300 million can wipe out 30 million any time they feel like it.

Aussies have been crapping their collective pants since the 1950s about an Indo invasion. They'd be forcefully converted alright.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 30th April 2019, 01:01 PM   #52
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,959
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
As mentioned, the real conflict is for the recognized leadership of All Muslims - and has been since the religion was first written down.
Islam never had schisms like Christianity, were you can simply ignore what a Pope or Patriarch says because you belong to a different confession. And those seeking to become Caliph often didn't have any reservations about taking money and military aid from non-Muslims. Sometimes it worked for the Wet, sometimes it didn't.
That is simply wrong.
Islam has had plenty of schisms. The Sunni/Shiite split being a huge one.
And many Muslim have ignored the Caliphs. Granted, they used the excuse they were illigtimate, but the Caliphs as the leader of Islam never had universal recognition.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 30th April 2019, 01:05 PM   #53
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,959
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
You will find all kinds of mindless religious bigots of every stripe extending back into the unwritten past. They exist now. Scientology is another dangerous cult of a similar type to radical Islam. This isn't whataboutism, it's simply the human condition.
And adherents of political ideologies can be just as murderous as religious beleivers.
Historian Michael Burleigh has written a lot about what he calls "Secular Relgions"..political or social movements that pretty much behave just like religious movements except for believe in a divine being.
I
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 30th April 2019, 01:05 PM   #54
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,207
Yet despite the schism, any sect is still Muslim and might be able to issue religiously relevant proclamations.
Sunni don't completely ignore Shia clerics and vice versa.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza 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 30th April 2019, 01:18 PM   #55
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,068
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I'm surprised your ears aren't bleeding. Harris is a jerk.
Incorrect.
carlitos 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 30th April 2019, 01:46 PM   #56
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I'm surprised your ears aren't bleeding. Harris is a jerk.
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Incorrect.

I agree carlitos although you could have used less words.

I have a lot of time for Harris. I find his cool, clear headed, discussions with many others, (and others diametrically opposed to his stance often), worth listening to. He, while clearly maintaining a humanitarian outlook, is prepared to acknowledge that Islam is a problem, that must be tackled. He is frustrated by those politically correct, but blatantly dishonest utterances by many, stating that "Islam is a religion of peace".

It is undeniable that the majority of Muslims live peaceful lives, and we should welcome them as our neighbours, but it is also clear now that extremists grow up as children of some of those neighbours - sometimes to the dismay of the parents.

We must recognise that a problem exists and try and develop strategies.
__________________
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 30th April 2019, 06:32 PM   #57
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,458
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
He is frustrated by those politically correct, but blatantly dishonest utterances by many, stating that "Islam is a religion of peace".
Does he cast the same criticism at Buddhists? Buddhists like to claim they're all about peace, but I'm sure I can find some Rohingya who would disagree.

His attacks on islam are one-dimensional.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 30th April 2019, 06:53 PM   #58
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Does he cast the same criticism at Buddhists? Buddhists like to claim they're all about peace, but I'm sure I can find some Rohingya who would disagree.

His attacks on islam are one-dimensional.

As Ron Obvious so succinctly put it "Bodycount" is the obvious reason for the concentration on Islam today. Haven't heard of Buddhists flying planes into buildings of late, but you may have some information about this I missed.

Mind you I would like to see the demise of all religions including Buddhism.
__________________
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 30th April 2019, 08:03 PM   #59
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,458
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
As Ron Obvious so succinctly put it "Bodycount" is the obvious reason for the concentration on Islam today. Haven't heard of Buddhists flying planes into buildings of late, but you may have some information about this I missed.
Body count says:

9/11 = 2996
Rohungya = 6,700 to 7,000 Rohingya people, including 730 children killed in the first month alone

Flying planes into buildings, burning people to death in their buildings... I don't see a lot of difference.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Mind you I would like to see the demise of all religions including Buddhism.
We agree on that!

Pity it's not going to happen.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 30th April 2019, 08:06 PM   #60
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,068
Islam. How Do We Cope?

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post

His attacks on islam are one-dimensional.


Since essentially only one dimension of Islam is the problem, that seems reasonable.

Last edited by carlitos; 30th April 2019 at 08:07 PM.
carlitos 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 30th April 2019, 09:09 PM   #61
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Body count says:

9/11 = 2996
Rohungya = 6,700 to 7,000 Rohingya people, including 730 children killed in the first month alone

Flying planes into buildings, burning people to death in their buildings... I don't see a lot of difference.



We agree on that!

Pity it's not going to happen.

Look I think I have been clear that I am talking about the effect of Islam in the West. Now this may seem selfish maybe, but this is where we may be able to do something about the impact of Islam.

Eventually something will happen and is happening in some Western countries already, at a faster rate than we are achieving in Australia and New Zealand. I would like input on how this can be speeded up.
__________________
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 30th April 2019, 11:13 PM   #62
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,370
Smoking caused 700000 deaths in Europe in 2018 alone according to the WHO.
I'd love it if the funds to counter terrorism were to include attempts to halt the tobacco companies who cause a thousand fold more deaths annualy and do so knowingly and solely for profit without even the courage to kill themselves doing so.
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 1st May 2019, 05:00 AM   #63
JamesXXVI
Thinker
 
JamesXXVI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 141
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Eventually something will happen and is happening in some Western countries already, at a faster rate than we are achieving in Australia and New Zealand. I would like input on how this can be speeded up.
I've looked into those countries and I like their policy of not selling weapons to Saudi Arabia.
JamesXXVI 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 1st May 2019, 05:59 AM   #64
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,685
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
How can we begin to deal with people who have this degree of belief? It makes the most fanatical of Christian devotees look limp by comparison.

You have made it very clear how you have begun to deal with Islam: By ignoring everything that might cause cognitive dissonance for you. You ignore arguments and documentation that don't support your idea about people from "nice homes", and when you cling to the word bodycount as an argument, you ignore the facts that make it obvious that you are wrong.
Don't pretend that you are looking for a solution to anything when you've already found your solution:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann 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 1st May 2019, 10:00 AM   #65
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,588
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I'm surprised your ears aren't bleeding. Harris is a jerk.

How are muslim extremists more extreme than someone who shoots a doctor for performing a legal medical procedure?

Sam Harris not an jerk idiot. The internet is indeed full of idiots, show-offs and trolls etc., but Harris is not any of those things.

Whether or not the US, UK and a whole host of other western democracies should ever send armed forces into other countries (Islamic countries in this particular case) is a complex question and probably far beyond any simplistic yes or no answer. But after the 9-11 attacks it's difficult to see how any western nation could have let anything like that pass without sending armed forces into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban and Al Qaeda from power.

With hindsight almost anyone could argue that the US/UK/All-others might have guessed that the result could be a worldwide uprising of militant jihadist Islam waging a succession of private wars all over the world.

I think you and others (e.g. Gdon) talked also about the indigenous people of those countries resenting foreign governments who send armed forces into those countries to prevent groups like IS and Al-Q from seizing power over whole nations? But how many ordinary Iraqi's, Afghan's, or Syrians really wanted Al Qaeda or IS as the rulers of their countries?

But even apart from all of that – what about all the countless numbers of Muslim suicide bombers who have been acting and/or plotting for the last 20 years all over Europe and elsewhere? What sort of genuine honest justification do you think all those people have for their public mass murders?

In the UK, since 9-11, we have had about 20 major Islamic terrorism trials (and/or actual attacks), not to mention about 200 more minor cases of Islamic radicals who ended up on trial in court for things like downloading bomb making instructions etc. or public displays inciting people into religious/Islamic violence etc. But in the major UK Islamist bombing trials almost all the defendants had either made speeches, or made so-called martyrdom videos, or left written wills or other written material (inc. masses of trial evidence), saying that their mass murder plots were retaliation for what they typically described as the UK “bombing, raping and gassing our brothers and sisters and children”, where they said for example “as you bomb us, so we will bomb you” …

… those are actual quotes from the writing and videos left by the London Tube bombers who killed 52 people and very seriously injured several hundred more people (many with arms and legs blown off) on 7th July 2005. Who were those tube bombers talking about when they said the UK was bombing, raping and gassing “us”? Nobody was bombing or harming them or their families in any way at all. By “us” they actually meant people they had never met in countries they had never been to ... the “us” actually meant complete unknown strangers who's only connection was to share the same religious faith of Islam.

So what right do ordinary private citizens such as the London Tube bombers have to decide they will go on to the London transport system and murder as many people as possible?

Same question about all the other Islamic bombers all across Europe since 9-11 – what right did the bombers have to set of bombs on the Madrid transport system in 2004? … or those that drove trucks into crowds of people in Germany, or on Westminster Bridge in London? …. or the people who shot the staff at the Paris office of the Charlie Ebdo magazine. What genuine right did any of these Islamic bombers have to form themselves into a private self appointed execution force and to murder people all over Europe?

What did the London Tube Bombers or the Westminster Bridge attackers actually know about the real reasoning behind why the UK government took the decision to send armed forces into Afghanistan to remove Bin Laden and the Taliban from power? Or what gives them the right to decide that they know the true details from the UK intelligence services and all of the EU intelligence services all of whom had been confident that Saddam Hussein did have an active program developing WMD in Iraq? Why do you think the West decided it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power after the 9-11 attacks?

It's one thing any of us here shooting our mouths off on the internet about how we know that UK Prime Minster Tony Blair was a “war criminal” who helped invade Iraq just for the hell of it, but it's something else entirely if your simplistic, uneducated beliefs and religious ideologies lead you into using those beliefs to form private execution squads and go out into crowded public places to murder as meany unsuspecting defenceless people as possible on the streets of London, Madrid, Paris and elsewhere.

Last edited by IanS; 1st May 2019 at 10:06 AM.
IanS is online now   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 1st May 2019, 10:38 AM   #66
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,163
How to "cope"?

Well, this isn't a monochrome issue, so there are diverse ways to cope.

One way -- that doesn't preclude other ways, but is probably necessary -- is to have at least a smidgen of justice done, and have it seen to be done.

The imbecile who "presided" over the dismantling of the polities of entire nations, and brought devastation to vast swathes of peoples -- he and his cohort, that lied outright about WMDs many many years ago, as well as their spiritual successors : Why do they not find themselves sitting in prison cells?

If geopolitical realpolitics are wholly lacking in fairness, then those who suffer will rightly feel disgruntled.

This thought might point at ways to "cope", that don't preclude other ways including dealing with crazy religious beliefs.
Chanakya 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 1st May 2019, 12:29 PM   #67
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,588
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
How to "cope"?

Well, this isn't a monochrome issue, so there are diverse ways to cope.

One way -- that doesn't preclude other ways, but is probably necessary -- is to have at least a smidgen of justice done, and have it seen to be done.

The imbecile who "presided" over the dismantling of the polities of entire nations, and brought devastation to vast swathes of peoples -- he and his cohort, that lied outright about WMDs many many years ago, as well as their spiritual successors : Why do they not find themselves sitting in prison cells?

If geopolitical realpolitics are wholly lacking in fairness, then those who suffer will rightly feel disgruntled.

This thought might point at ways to "cope", that don't preclude other ways including dealing with crazy religious beliefs.


OK, well right on cue, someone immediately turns up to say that Bush and Blair lied about WMD and should be in a prison.

I don't know what intelligence the US President had about Saddam Hussein and what he believed about any WMD development program, but in the UK, long after the invasion of Iraq and the failure to find any clear nuclear program in progress, we had three separate major judge-lead inquires into whether or not Tony Blair and his main advisor Alastair Campbell (or any others in the Labour Government) had deliberately misled or lied to the UK parliament or to the British people about the belief that Saddam Hussein did pose a WMD threat in the region ...

... and there were all sorts of different angles and elements of questions along those lines that were investigated in great depth in those inquires, and the outcome of all of that was that neither Blair, or Alastair Campbell or anyone else in the UK government, had either lied or deliberately mislead the UK public or the MP's about any of that.

Of course, many people who enjoy conspiracy theories just don't want to accept any of those findings. They want to say Blair, Campbell and the Labour government were lying and took us deliberately into a war merely for oil or for other such reasons. But that is not what any of the actual inquiries found.

People here, or anywhere else, are entitled to think whatever they want about why Blair and many other European leaders thought it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power. But there was at the time a very significant background to that decision. That included the fact that 10 years before Saddam had invaded Kuwait and declared it to be part of Iraq, inc. the Kuwait oil fields etc., and despite many months of all the western leaders trying to negotiate with Saddam and trying to get him to leave Kuwait peacefully, he completely refused and instead made ranting speeches about how his “battle hardened desert trained armies” would massacre any western forces that attempted to stop him etc etc. And then in the end, after about 6 months of that, the combined western forces did enter the region and finally did force Saddam and his seriously underprepared army out of Kuwait.

Saddam then signed a “ceasefire agreement”, which was really a “surrender” document, in which agreed to let weapons inspectors into Iraq to examine what he was really doing as the military dictator who had already engaged in another long war with Iran. But that proved to be just 10 years of lies, defiance, and mostly non-compliance from Saddam.

But then when the shock of 9-11 happened, it suddenly dawned upon western leaders inc. Tony Blair that it was simply too dangerous to leave Saddam in power when Bin Laden and Al-Q had clearly shown that they would be only too happy to make attacks with planes carrying WMD materials if they possibly could. And that was given, by Blair at least, as the really crucial reason why Saddam had to go.

Saddam was then repeatedly offered safe passage and asylum in some other country if he would voluntarily step down and allow a less threatening & less dangerous leadership in Iraq. Of course he refused and kept up all sorts pretence and prevarications. And eventually the western allies did invade and Saddam was removed from power.

But it was that background of constant problems and military threats from Saddam, that finally pushed the US, UK and other nations into action against him. And the final major factor in that was 9-11 and the fact that what happened on 9-11 made it very clear to everyone that there was now a very real threat of future attacks using some form of WMD devices on hijacked planes anywhere in the world.

Do I personally think they should have invaded Iraq to remove Saddam? Actually, no! But that was because just a week or two before the invasion the main UN Weapons Inspector that the west had in Iraq, i.e. Hans Blix, had handed reports to Blair and afaik also to Bush, making clear that so far they had examined most of the supposed nuclear manufacturing sites and found no significant clear evidence of any viable nuclear program, and crucially his report made clear that he needed just a little more time in which to make certain that was indeed the case, i.e. he said he needed not just days, nor many months, but some number of weeks to finish his tests and checks. But the Western allies decided they could not wait longer and that if they were ever going to make a successful attack, it had to be there and then in the next few weeks.

Last edited by IanS; 1st May 2019 at 12:38 PM.
IanS is online now   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 1st May 2019, 12:30 PM   #68
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,458
Originally Posted by JamesXXVI View Post
I've looked into those countries and I like their policy of not selling weapons to Saudi Arabia.
Pretty easy for us - we don't make any weapons.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Whether or not the US, UK and a whole host of other western democracies should ever send armed forces into other countries (Islamic countries in this particular case) is a complex question and probably far beyond any simplistic yes or no answer.
Except, the fact that it's very simple is shown in many other countries, where far worse things are happening and no action taken.

CAR, Rwanda, Myanmar, the Uighurs in China, ad nauseum, did not have Uncle Sam helping them out.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
But after the 9-11 attacks it's difficult to see how any western nation could have let anything like that pass without sending armed forces into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban and Al Qaeda from power.
How's that turning out for you?

I note there was never any thought of invading Saudi Arabia, where the hijackers actually came from.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
With hindsight almost anyone could argue that the US/UK/All-others might have guessed that the result could be a worldwide uprising of militant jihadist Islam waging a succession of private wars all over the world.
No hindsight required, plenty of people have been pointing it out for decades. Since WWII, we have ample evidence that USA's interventions have been disastrous, or maybe you've never heard of Colombia, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Iraq.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
But how many ordinary Iraqi's, Afghan's, or Syrians really wanted Al Qaeda or IS as the rulers of their countries?
Srsly? That's your argument?

Iraq: AQ was never a factor in Iraq, because Saddam was ruling the place with an iron fist. May not have been great for dissenters, but ordinary citizens were safe and christian churches abounded.

A'stan, christ knows how many deaths since the invasion and USA is in negotiations to hand power back to Taliban.

Syria. Yes, Bashar is a bad man, much like Saddam was. I believe he's still in power.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
But even apart from all of that – what about all the countless numbers of Muslim suicide bombers who have been acting and/or plotting for the last 20 years all over Europe and elsewhere?

...saying that their mass murder plots were retaliation for what they typically described as the UK “bombing, raping and gassing our brothers and sisters and children”, where they said for example “as you bomb us, so we will bomb you”
Then ask yourself how many islamic terror attacks there were in Europe and UK prior to Gulf War I & II.

Can you imagine why there's such a stark difference?

Hint - neither UK or Europe were killing ragheads prior to the Gulf Wars.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
So what right do ordinary private citizens such as the London Tube bombers have to decide they will go on to the London transport system and murder as many people as possible?
Look at my last comment again and let me know.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 1st May 2019, 12:59 PM   #69
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,246
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I agree carlitos although you could have used less words.

I have a lot of time for Harris. I find his cool, clear headed, discussions with many others, (and others diametrically opposed to his stance often), worth listening to. He, while clearly maintaining a humanitarian outlook, is prepared to acknowledge that Islam is a problem, that must be tackled. He is frustrated by those politically correct, but blatantly dishonest utterances by many, stating that "Islam is a religion of peace".

It is undeniable that the majority of Muslims live peaceful lives, and we should welcome them as our neighbours, but it is also clear now that extremists grow up as children of some of those neighbours - sometimes to the dismay of the parents.

We must recognise that a problem exists and try and develop strategies.
The strategy for dealing with them is obvious: don't welcome them as neighbors. Islam isn't a problem. Trying to force multiculturalism is.
CaptainHowdy 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 1st May 2019, 02:26 PM   #70
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Body count says:

9/11 = 2996
Rohungya = 6,700 to 7,000 Rohingya people, including 730 children killed in the first month alone

Flying planes into buildings, burning people to death in their buildings... I don't see a lot of difference.


I wonder if I am the only one who can see the similarity between what you are suggesting here, and what The Big Dog said over and over and over again, in his thread - "Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful"..... "Chinese leaders are atheists, therefore atheism is the motivation, behind the atrocities."

The Rohingya refugee problem is complex you might like to look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bDgDiBO4Co


As I understand it you are trying to make an argument that because more people are killed, (In the name of Buddhism???), in Myanmar, we should be concerned about this rather than those killed in our own countries by Islamic extremists. Sort of - "These other people are doing it worse so there." kind of non argument.
__________________
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 1st May 2019, 02:35 PM   #71
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
The strategy for dealing with them is obvious: don't welcome them as neighbors. Islam isn't a problem. Trying to force multiculturalism is.

Unfortunately this is the spin off when folk can't see any other way. Isolation and discrimination against a people because they happen to be the wrong religion. It can't work and it should not work if we are to hold our heads up as humanitarian.

People like Pauline Hansen, and other right wingers in my country, feed on this stuff. The racists in my country live on it as well, as they target Muslims (mainly women as they are easily identifiable), with their vile abuse.
__________________
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 1st May 2019, 02:57 PM   #72
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,163
@IanS :

I don't disagree, but here's the thing :

1. Surely you'll agree that even if not B&B personally, then some people, people pretty high up, in Intelligence perhaps, were either criminally dishonest, or else criminally incompetent? You can't unleash damage on this scale and expect to go personally unpunished, not in a system that is at all fair.

2. If you imagine this mega-scale military adventure was appropriate, given 9/11 and "defiance", well then given any fairness in the world, those who got the business end of the stick will consider further retaliation appropriate. Not possessing the might of the West, they'll turn to impotent but nevertheless terrible methods that are within their reach.

I don't see any lasting solution that does not inject at least some fairness into this grossly unjust situation.
Chanakya 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 1st May 2019, 03:18 PM   #73
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,458
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Sort of - "These other people are doing it worse so there." kind of non argument.
Nope.

I'm saying that while islamic terrorism and islam is the target of anybody who's looking for some low-hanging fruit, those people tend to ignore other, equally-bad, atrocities.

By all means, have a crack at islam, but be inclusive and point out the other religion-based atrocities being carried out as well.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 1st May 2019, 03:23 PM   #74
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Nope.

I'm saying that while islamic terrorism and islam is the target of anybody who's looking for some low-hanging fruit, those people tend to ignore other, equally-bad, atrocities.

By all means, have a crack at islam, but be inclusive and point out the other religion-based atrocities being carried out as well.

The title of the threat is - "Islam. How Do We Cope?"

Perhaps you missed that?
__________________
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 1st May 2019, 04:51 PM   #75
metacristi
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser: In fact non-muslims were far more tolerated than different religions in non muslim nations.

If by that you mean that non-Muslims were tolerated in Muslim countries, then that's definitely not true.

I would comment a little on that since this is the subject which first drew my attention towards Islam. Depends crucially what one means by 'toleration'. The 'paradigm' since the WW2 in this problem (shared also by many of the old orientalists, like Bernard Lewis et altri) has been that Islam was 'tolerant' in the Middle Ages because "persecution, that is to say, violent and active repression was rare and atypical" (pogroms & forced conversions quite rare) and that it gave some 'rights' to non-muslims (finally that in spite of clear discrimination this 'was better than nothing'). So Islam was tolerant in this narrative.

I've always found this conclusion odd, indeed in a review of Norman Stillman's book 'The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source' (widely accepted by the orthodoxy in academia) C.E. Bosworth wrote for example that "This is a splendid book, even though the subject is in many ways a monument to human intolerance and fanaticism". Shouldn't be more rational from evidence to say that the dhimmis were at most 'tolerated in abjection' even if, indeed, for a period in the Middle Ages the situation of religious minorities was better in the Islamic world than in Christendom*? I would say that yes, I'm fully with Bat Ye'or here, sheer injustice done in different ways than the Europeans remains sheer injustice, we deal with only a difference of degree not one of essence. The dhimma did not work that well after all given that large majorities became minorities in just a few centuries...The result of jihad (the so called 'rights' of the dhimmis**), designed to humiliate and exploit the dhimmis in perpetuity***, does not deserve any praise.

Finally, the existence of periods in which the dhimma laws were not applied rigorously cannot exonerate Islam, rather this shows that people are better sometimes than the ideology in which they are raised or indicates the existence of pragmatic, political reasons behind. As an analogy, if the Nazis had won the war and some Gauleiters from the former USSR - having become independent after Hitler's death, retaining though good parts from the Nazi doctrine - would have employed slavs - the so called 'subhumans of he East', destined to be brute force labourers - in high positions in their states does not mean of course that Nazism can be exonerated. What Bat Ye'or says about the dhimmis is actually at least a legitimate direction of research (yes constant discrimination and humiliation over long period of times can be very harmful), in my view she is much closer to the truth than the paradigm of today (nothing to do with her books about Eurabia by the way, read 'The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam' and ' The Decline of Eastern Christianity: From Jihad to Dhimmitude').



* I believe that Shlomo Dov Goitein describes best the legal status of religious minorities under Islam (following his research on the Cairo Geniza Letters), it can also explain naturally why the situation of the dhimmis worsened so severely in the 19th century (the ottoman laws abrogating the dhimma, under the pressure of European Powers anyway, remained dead letter until Ataturk):

Quote:
Christians and Jews were not citizens of the state, not even second class citizens. They were outsiders under the protection of the Muslim state, a status characterized by the term dhimma, for which protection they had to pay a poll tax specific to them. They were also exposed to a great number of discriminatory and humiliating laws...As it lies in the very nature of such restrictions, soon additional humiliations were added, and before the second century of Islam was out, a complete body of legislation in this matter was in existence...In times and places in which they became too oppressive they lead to the dwindling or even complete extinction of the minorities.
- [S. D. Goitein - Minority Selfrule and Government Control in Islam]

https://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/b...ples_islam.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Benjamin - pogroms and discrimination grew exponentially, the situation of the dhimmis worsened catastrophically in the 19th centuriy in many parts of the Islamic world (valid especially for the Jews, who were not protected in the same measure by the European Powers)


**revocable at any time if the Muslims decided, unilaterally, that they were betrayed [or other reasons], following Muhammad's example with the Jews of Medina and Khaybar, the so called 'rights' were not inalienable at all but depended entirely on the whim of the umma.


*** the caliph Umar extended Muhammad's example with the defeated Jews at Medina and Khaybar to all newly (jihad) conquered territories:

Quote:
Have you considered, if we take them [as slaves] and share them out, what will be left for Muslims who come after us? By God, the Muslims would not find a man to talk to and profit from his labors. The Muslims of our day will eat [from the work of] these people as long as they live, and when we and they die, our sons will eat their sons forever, as long as they remain, for they are slaves to the people of the religion of Islam as long as the religion of Islam shall prevail.
- Bernard Lewis - "Islam from the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople"
__________________
“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; 1st May 2019 at 05:03 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 1st May 2019, 05:24 PM   #76
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,458
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
The title of the threat is - "Islam. How Do We Cope?"

Perhaps you missed that?
Jeez mate - lose an argument and resort to childishness? We were specifically discussing why Harris' response is wrong.

Same applies to your thread, if you want to look at it that way - cope by criticising all religions equally and don't pick out islam.

Pity nobody Trump knows is participating in this thread, because he's just about to make a huge mistake in dealing with islam, no doubt fuelled by one of the world's greatest islamphobes, John Bolton.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump...b07602ad52fe55
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 1st May 2019, 06:13 PM   #77
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Jeez mate - lose an argument and resort to childishness? We were specifically discussing why Harris' response is wrong.

Same applies to your thread, if you want to look at it that way - cope by criticising all religions equally and don't pick out islam.

Pity nobody Trump knows is participating in this thread, because he's just about to make a huge mistake in dealing with islam, no doubt fuelled by one of the world's greatest islamphobes, John Bolton.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump...b07602ad52fe55

Oh yes of course! You made the comment:

"I'm surprised your ears aren't bleeding. Harris is a jerk."

An argument of such depth I was struggling to respond, so I had to resort to diversionary tactics.
__________________
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 1st May 2019, 06:53 PM   #78
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,025
Originally Posted by Ron Obvious View Post
Bodycount?
If body count is the criteria then Muslim extremists have a lot of catching up to do. During the past 100 years Athiests have killed ~100 million people, Shintos around 10 million and Christians at least 20 million.

But the ideology responsible for the greatest number of ongoing deaths is - Capitalism. And once the final death toll from Global Warming is in, it will be impossible to beat!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg global death causes.jpg (61.2 KB, 7 views)
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets 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 1st May 2019, 10:45 PM   #79
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,458
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
"I'm surprised your ears aren't bleeding. Harris is a jerk."

An argument of such depth I was struggling to respond, so I had to resort to diversionary tactics.
After Harris' support of torture - support he's never renounced, although he's very sorry about it, because it rightly makes him look like a douche - I never feel the need to give too many reasons as to why he's not worth the oxygen he uses.

Of course, if this was in a Members-only section, I wouldn't have used the work jerk. Doesn't really fit the case, but the best I had handy without asterisks.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
And once the final death toll from Global Warming is in, it will be impossible to beat!
Excellent numbers, but you've fallen into the trap that atheism is responsible for millions of deaths. Convenient for theists to see it that way, and there's even a thread on the very subject you might like to check, because it's a complete mis-representation of the facts.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 1st May 2019, 11:17 PM   #80
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
If body count is the criteria then Muslim extremists have a lot of catching up to do. During the past 100 years Athiests have killed ~100 million people, Shintos around 10 million and Christians at least 20 million.

But the ideology responsible for the greatest number of ongoing deaths is - Capitalism. And once the final death toll from Global Warming is in, it will be impossible to beat!
Blaming all those deaths on "capitalism" is overly simplistic.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow 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 12:25 AM.
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.