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 28th May 2019, 02:26 PM   #321
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Thor 2, if the Islam problem is not defused, what will happen IYO? In say 10 years, 50 years, 100 years? Perhaps understanding the consequences of non-action might provide hints about how to defuse the problem.
I think the non-action will result in more bombings, than we would have if we can somehow take some action.
__________________
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 28th May 2019, 03:35 PM   #322
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,885
Suspicion and intolerance: How do Muslims cope?
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon 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 28th May 2019, 05:25 PM   #323
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,088
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I think the non-action will result in more bombings, than we would have if we can somehow take some action.
What if the Western world coped with Islam terrorism by stopping the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of people from Muslim countries? Would that stop Islam terrorism, in your opinion?

Last edited by GDon; 28th May 2019 at 05:27 PM.
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 28th May 2019, 10:35 PM   #324
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,370
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
This is getting more one eyed and sillier all the time. I have acknowledged there may be other causes than Islam for terrorism by Muslim extremists, I never denied this either, but here you go suggesting that Islam does not inspire terrorism at all! In spite of all the material I and others, have provided in support of the proposition. Apart from your inner knowledge, can you point to anything to support this notion?

History? Prior to the 1800's the history of the Islamic nations is not more violent or repressive than their surrounding nations, with good and bad moments.
Post 1800 to decolonization there is no more terrorism in the Muslim colonies than in the African/Asian colonies
During/after decolonization there is again no more terrorism in the liberation movements than in similar movements around the world.
Post 1960s large amounts of Muslim immigrants move into Europe and yet do not start a campaign of terror against the west the moment they arrive.
The terrorism we currently encounter starts in 2001, at least a decade after the gulf war.
If you were right, then we would have seen a very different history. I acknowledge that Islam is being USED by terrorists as a tool to get people stupid enough to become suicide bombers, but any religion would do for that


Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Same old stuff about all the other bad things that are happening so we can forget about Islam.
Interesting dodge there, first I need to answer how I feel about the oppressed people in Islamic countries, but you refuse to answer how you feel about the many more people in equally horrible situations you cannot pin on Islam.
And second, pointing out that the threat of Islamic terrorism is being blown out of proportion in a certain segment of the media and being used to implement a very christian/conservative agenda is somehow not relevant to this discussion. Why not?

For the record I do not say we should forget about Islam, I say we should use education in western countries to counter the indoctrination happening here, coupled with ending the stream of money from certain nations to fundamentalist mosques. And that should also be applied to ALL religious institutions equally. But the histrionics currently shown by blaming the actions of a few on a whole religion are counterproductive and unfair.
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 May 2019, 04:54 AM   #325
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,588
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
What if the Western world coped with Islam terrorism by stopping the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of people from Muslim countries? Would that stop Islam terrorism, in your opinion?

You make it sound as if the "Western world" is "bombing, gassing, imprisoning and torturing" Muslims for no other reason except that it want's to kill religious people called "Muslims".

That's what the fundamentalists themselves say when they say it's all just a Christian “crusade” to destroy Islam and to deny God's own wish/command that Islam must rule all over the world.

You must know perfectly well that the West is not trying to kill any ordinary harmless members of the Muslim public anywhere around the world.

And even in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, you must know that invading western forces have gone to enormous lengths to avoid harming any innocent Muslim bystanders. To suggest otherwise is, I'm sorry to say, just another piece of blatant uncaring dishonesty in this thread.

You must also know very well, but declined ever to mention it, that Islamic fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS (Daesh) deliberately and habitually mix themselves in with the general Muslim citizens during the fighting, ie deliberately using ordinary non-combatant Muslim civilians as so-called “humane shields”. You must know that very well.

In Syria, eg in the fighting for the last IS stronghold in Baghouz, you must know very well that the thousands of so-called Jihadi Brides and their numerous very young children, were all deliberately living right alongside the IS male fighters and often the women were also involved in the fighting, they were very deliberately all there together during all of the fighting ... and you must know all of that very well too ... but you didn't mention it, you didn't mention any of that at all.

Suppose that after the 9-11 attacks the US had decided to do no more than express vocal dissent to Bin-Laden, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Suppose the USA had not taken any military action, what then do you think would have happened? What do you think would have stopped Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda fighters making more attacks on the West? … are you going to speculate that they would not have made any more attacks?, because we already just had the actual fact of them making exactly such an attack on 9-11, ie it's a definite fact they were trying to make such attacks, so you cannot argue that no such later attacks would take place.

It's also obvious that future attacks would almost certainly have escalated to include planes carrying not just innocent passengers (inc. children) but as many crude WMD devices as they could possibly acquire, eg crude nuclear devices, as well as biological and chemical devices. After the fact of 9-11, it's no longer possible to deny that all of that was clearly on the agenda for Al-Qaeda.

If the US (+ UK and others) had not invaded Afghanistan, if they had only sent vocal objections to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, then would we have seen less Islamic suicide bombers in London, Madrid, Paris, Munich, Bali etc.? Probably, Yes, we would have had far less (maybe none at all) if the West had taken no action after 9-11 … but as just explained, the fact of the 9-11 attack shows beyond all argument that the West would probably have suffered many more direct attacks like that from Al-Qaeda by now. So after 9-11, it really was not realistically possible to allow Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban to continue in power operating in that way with complete freedom in Afghanistan.
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 29th May 2019, 05:17 AM   #326
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,370
Of course, the west also knew that once they attacked Al-qeada and the Taliban they would hide amongst civilians and thus accepted that these civilian deaths would occur. Years of experience with partisan warfare (Russia 1940-44, Vietnam etc.) has shown that is the only way a weaker combatant can hope to defend themselves against one with technological superiority. In fact, the Taliban had already shown to be quite willing to do that.

So, while I never claim that the west is out to get Muslim civilians on purpose, it was known they would occur.

Now you claim that if we had not invaded that Al-qaeda would have attacked again, but how? As I mentioned before every stratagem used so far was inventive and destructive and usable exactly once. And Al-qaeda had to use non US/UK/European civilians, which are now screened FAR more thoroughly. Yet you mention yourself that the counter terrorism wars and their effects on civilians in those countries are a significant part of the motivation for homegrown terrorists to act.
So why assume that if the west had NOT acted the way it did that Al-qeada would have been equally effective? After all, "we are killing our own civilians" is nowhere near as effective propaganda as the excuse we give now.
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 May 2019, 01:56 PM   #327
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
What if the Western world coped with Islam terrorism by stopping the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of people from Muslim countries? Would that stop Islam terrorism, in your opinion?

I agree that aggression against Muslims, where that happens, would certainly help. Do you agree however that Islam, in any way, is a reason for terrorist activity? I have drawn the attention of readers to the pod cast by Sam Harris, where he quotes from Dabiq. The Islamic extremists list the reasons for hating the West, and the main reason is purely and simply because we do not embrace 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 29th May 2019, 02:21 PM   #328
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Just read a story in the ABC news about Egg Boy - the teenage guy whose claim to fame is his egging of Frazer Anning. To those unfamiliar with him Frazer is an ultra right wing racist.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-29/egg-boy-will-connolly-donates-$100k-to-christchurch-victims/11159370

Quote:
The Australian teenager who smashed an egg onto the head of far-right Senator Fraser Anning says he has donated close to $100,000 to the survivors of the Christchurch terrorist attack.

What a wonderful gesture this is, and I suggest a great normaliser of relations, between Muslims and non Muslims. It illustrates an acceptance of and empathy with the people, in contrast to the vilification they are subjected to often, by the vile in our midst.
__________________
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 May 2019, 03:04 PM   #329
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,088
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I agree that aggression against Muslims, where that happens, would certainly help. Do you agree however that Islam, in any way, is a reason for terrorist activity?
No, I don't. There is no evidence for it. That is, if the activities by the West against Muslim countries stopped, the terrorism would stop. It would stop, even if the terrorists continued to follow Islam. This suggests to me that Islam itself is not a factor in terrorism.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I have drawn the attention of readers to the pod cast by Sam Harris, where he quotes from Dabiq. The Islamic extremists list the reasons for hating the West, and the main reason is purely and simply because we do not embrace Islam.
See the highlighted words above. Do you see how you are equivocating two different terms? You may be right in that those two things are the same, but you'll need to supply evidence towards your position.

The most obvious piece of evidence that you'll need to explain is that if Islam itself is somehow to blame, why are 99% of Muslims not committing acts of violence against the West? Why haven't the majority of Muslims done so, constantly, throughout history?

You keep writing this off as somehow soft-soaping Islam, but that's not the reason that statistic is so important. It's an obvious counter to your point, at least with how you are expressing it. I think that in your mind you see the difference between the two terms I highlighted above, but it isn't coming out on paper.

Last edited by GDon; 29th May 2019 at 03:11 PM.
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 29th May 2019, 03:09 PM   #330
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,890
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Yes what a great strategy! Just make up a lot of stuff and hurl it at the other poster. No truth in the assertions? ....... Irrelevant.
Doesn't stop you hurling abuse at 1.8 billion people does it?
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal 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 May 2019, 03:13 PM   #331
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,890
Originally Posted by IanS View Post

That has no comparison at all with what happened when the US, UK, and dozens of other democratic nations agreed together to make a military invasion
Why does this have no comparison at all in your view? I think you are missing something rather pertinent.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal 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 May 2019, 03:52 PM   #332
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
No, I don't. There is no evidence for it. That is, if the activities by the West against Muslim countries stopped, the terrorism would stop. It would stop, even if the terrorists continued to follow Islam. This suggests to me that Islam itself is not a factor in terrorism.
My, my, all that bolded stuff and no evidence you offer, indicates a statement of faith is what we are seeing. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you really are ignorant, of the detail surrounding the terrorist accounts. Not being deliberately misleading that is. Have you heard of the words Allāhu Akbar perhaps? It is the sort of utterance heard and even recorded when bombers detonate and planes are flown into buildings.

Perhaps you didn't hear of the murder of the cartoonists in France? They weren't bombing anyone of the Islamic faith that I know of. Unless it was after work which is possible I suppose.

Quote:
See the highlighted words above. Do you see how you are equivocating two different terms? You may be right in that those two things are the same, but you'll need to supply evidence towards your position.

The most obvious piece of evidence that you'll need to explain is that if Islam itself is somehow to blame, why are 99% of Muslims not committing acts of violence against the West? Why haven't the majority of Muslims done so, constantly, throughout history?
Nah, can't see it. Mind you my consistent stance is for the diffusion of Islam with a view to stop Islamic extremism. You, among others, insist on painting me as an ant Muslim, (the general population), with veins in my teeth.

I made mention a few posts back, about a survey taken in Egypt recently. As I recall something like 70% of Egyptians condoned the use of violence against those who insult Islam - cartoon drawers and such.

Quote:
You keep writing this off as somehow soft-soaping Islam, but that's not the reason that statistic is so important. It's an obvious counter to your point, at least with how you are expressing it. I think that in your mind you see the difference between the two terms I highlighted above, but it isn't coming out on paper.
Oh the 99% percent one you are talking about? I haven't disputed that if you would pay attention although the origin of the percentage is vague. I have however mentioned, what is common knowledge now, that many of the extremists come from the homes of those 99%.
__________________
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 May 2019, 03:55 PM   #333
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Doesn't stop you hurling abuse at 1.8 billion people does it?

Now where did I do that?

I know, I know, just another of those things you have conjured 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 29th May 2019, 07:00 PM   #334
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,089
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Now where did I do that?

I know, I know, just another of those things you have conjured up.
Your failure to understand this is related to our previous discussions.

Just sayin'.
__________________
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 29th May 2019, 10:04 PM   #335
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,370
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
My, my, all that bolded stuff and no evidence you offer, indicates a statement of faith is what we are seeing. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you really are ignorant, of the detail surrounding the terrorist accounts. Not being deliberately misleading that is. Have you heard of the words Allāhu Akbar perhaps? It is the sort of utterance heard and even recorded when bombers detonate and planes are flown into buildings.

Perhaps you didn't hear of the murder of the cartoonists in France? They weren't bombing anyone of the Islamic faith that I know of. Unless it was after work which is possible I suppose.



Nah, can't see it. Mind you my consistent stance is for the diffusion of Islam with a view to stop Islamic extremism. You, among others, insist on painting me as an ant Muslim, (the general population), with veins in my teeth.

I made mention a few posts back, about a survey taken in Egypt recently. As I recall something like 70% of Egyptians condoned the use of violence against those who insult Islam - cartoon drawers and such.



Oh the 99% percent one you are talking about? I haven't disputed that if you would pay attention although the origin of the percentage is vague. I have however mentioned, what is common knowledge now, that many of the extremists come from the homes of those 99%.
I wonder, do you realize that this argument pretty much mirrors the argument The Big Dog used to make about atheists in the China thread?
Where you vehemently opposed it?
Why the different approach here?
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 30th May 2019, 04:59 AM   #336
Egg
Graduate Poster
 
Egg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
OK, well … I think if we produce posts with a lot of different points, as I did several times above, then that can make it difficult for anyone replying, because it means they have to address numerous different comments & claims etc. So just to simplify things here, I want to focus just on the two highlighted passages above -

- firstly as an admission of what could be a weak point in my own belief about Islamist terrorism, I do think the basis of their actions is primarily religious (and not something else). So that is perhaps a key point of dispute between any of us here. I think the evidence for the involvement of Islamic religious belief is undeniable and I have explained the reasoning for that earlier in this thread, however, I think we can simplify it here in the case of the above, by asking -

- do you think the London Tube bombers were justified in what they did?

Do you think the fact that they believed (and iirc they left statements to say so) that UK military forces in Iraq (and/or also in Afghanistan) were “killing, bombing and raping our women and children” (that's a quote from memory, either from the 7-7 Tube Bombers or one of that later UK terrorist trials), do you think that belief is justification for ordinary UK citizens (such as the London Tube bombers) to form themselves into a private execution squad in a country three thousand miles from Iraq or Afghanistan, and to go into a crowded public place such as a London tube train and indiscriminately slaughter as many people as possible?

Seriously what could ever possibly be any genuine justification for that?

It's surely not a genuine justification to say they simply "believed" that UK military forces were killing Muslims in Iraq. Because whatever any of us think about what any military forces do in any war zone anywhere in the world, and whatever we may individually think is right or wrong about such military action, it is certainly not our place as private individuals on the other side of the world to take murderous retaliatory law into our own hands.

So … what is the genuine justification that either the London Tube bombers or any of the other terrorist attackers across the EU could honestly give for their plots to slaughter people in Europe?

One of the points I made before on that issue was that the Tube bombers (and/or others in the many UK terrorist cases and subsequent legal trials) often said things such as “as you bomb us, so we will bomb you” … but who did they mean by “us”? … the London tube bombers were not being bombed by anyone! … the many other UK Muslims arrested in terrorism cases/trials were not being bombed by anyone either. What they meant by “us” was the people who they also called their “brothers” in Iraq, Afghanistan, and more recently in Syria … but they were not brothers or sisters or family at all … what they mean of course is “brothers & sisters” in Islamic religious belief …

…. the point is that they are undeniably acting on the basis of claiming a religious duty to fight (a physical Jihad, which is actually a religious war) in support of any other people of the same religious Islamic belief if they think that those other “brothers in religious belief” are being attacked or persecuted in some way.

And one last point on that – why is it that, long after any western military victory in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria (or anywhere else), their Islamic “brothers” in those countries are still being killed by western military forces? What are these so-called “brothers” actually doing to get themselves killed by western military forces in those countries? I think the honest answer is that the “brothers” in question are overwhelmingly armed Islamist fighters who are members of groups like IS and Al-Q … in which respect, remember that in the case of the London Tube bombers their attack came in 2005 which was two years after the invasion of Iraq, and at a time (i.e. 7-7 2005) when Iraq had been plunged into a terrorist backlash with the reformation of Al-Q (who had been driven out of Afghanistan) now in Iraq calling itself Al-Q-in-Iraq or “Al-Q in the Islamic Maghreb” … and amongst the words left behind by Sidique Khan (one of the London Tube bombers) was open praise of Bin-Laden and Al-Q for what they did in attacking the USA and in seizing power for Islam in Afghanistan.

Overall - I do think that Islamic religious belief is the fundamental basis of the problem in all of this. You may disagree and think all sorts of other factors are the real issue. But if I am right (and I'm hardly alone in saying this ... afaik the huge mass of terrorism experts agree that Islamic religious belief is at the very least a big part of the problem), then the only way the world can ever solve this problem and ever stop the worldwide uprising of Islamic Jihad fighting all sorts of terrorist wars against all sorts of people, is by admitting that religious belief is a huge part of the problem and educating people (especially beginning with children in all schools) away from fundamentalist literal beliefs in religious gods, paradise, and beliefs about "only one true Law of Allah" etc.
Well, no, of course they weren't justified if I base my judgement on my own standards. But then I'd also have a hard time justifying many of the actions by our governments and our soldiers in the Middle East. I see no reason to doubt that the terrorists believed that included bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture - I think your descriptions of the military actions probably paint much of what happened and why in a pretty favorable light - no doubt there was quite a different spin going around in some Muslim circles.

I don't deny a religious component, but I think the motivations can be largely explained with the religious part being little more than a tribal identifier. That's not to say there aren't some problematic and dangerous interpretations of Islam around, but there are also many Muslims who share the outrage at the military actions but would never retaliate in such a way, citing their interpretation of Islam as part of why they couldn't justify such actions.
__________________

"That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid." - Wuschel
"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg" - Samuel Butler
“When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong” - African proverb
“A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked” - Bernard Meltzer
Egg 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 May 2019, 05:34 AM   #337
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,588
If in this thread we are asking whether there is a better way to make the world safe from things such as the Islamic terrorist attacks, then as I said many pages back I think there is a better way, and that “better way” is education.

And you could actually make that change quite quickly and easily across most of the EU countries.

The big problem of course is how to change education in the Islamic world. Ie – how to stop the Islamic countries indoctrinating children from birth with lifelong belief in the existence of Allah, paradise, prayers, miracles and the absolute word of God in the Holy books.

But even so, just making that sort of change to childrens education (and in fact to adult education) in the less religious parts of the EU would be a very good start (e.g. UK and Scandinavian countries).
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 30th May 2019, 01:43 PM   #338
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,458
Some christians are on side with the Problem of Islam:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/chr...ace-of-muslims
__________________
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 May 2019, 02:03 PM   #339
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,959
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
If in this thread we are asking whether there is a better way to make the world safe from things such as the Islamic terrorist attacks, then as I said many pages back I think there is a better way, and that “better way” is education.

And you could actually make that change quite quickly and easily across most of the EU countries.

The big problem of course is how to change education in the Islamic world. Ie – how to stop the Islamic countries indoctrinating children from birth with lifelong belief in the existence of Allah, paradise, prayers, miracles and the absolute word of God in the Holy books.

But even so, just making that sort of change to childrens education (and in fact to adult education) in the less religious parts of the EU would be a very good start (e.g. UK and Scandinavian countries).
All that will take years. And you can't expect people in the West to "turn the other cheek" to Islamic Extremism in the mean time.
The real problem..and I think we have seen a number of examples here..is that some on the Radical Left have totally bought into the idea that Islamic Extremist are just misguided "Anti Colonlist Freedom Fighters" and spend an awful lot of time basically excusing their actions under the guise of "Explaning and Understanding" it.
And don't think for second that the Islamic Extermists don't understand this and exploit it.
__________________
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 May 2019, 02:05 PM   #340
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,959
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Some christians are on side with the Problem of Islam:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/chr...ace-of-muslims
And some Muslims have the same basic ideas about the Problem of Christinaity.
Pretty clear you cut Islam a lot of slack you do not cut Christians.
__________________
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 May 2019, 02:08 PM   #341
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Your failure to understand this is related to our previous discussions.

Just sayin'.

I expected something a little better than this from you arth.
__________________
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 May 2019, 02:15 PM   #342
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
I wonder, do you realize that this argument pretty much mirrors the argument The Big Dog used to make about atheists in the China thread?
Where you vehemently opposed it?
Why the different approach here?

Doesn't look anything like The Big Dog's argument to me.

Mind you I did point out The Athiest's argument about the killing of people in Myanmar being Buddhism driven had a great similarity to The Big Dog's whimpering however.
__________________
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 May 2019, 02:40 PM   #343
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
If in this thread we are asking whether there is a better way to make the world safe from things such as the Islamic terrorist attacks, then as I said many pages back I think there is a better way, and that “better way” is education.

And you could actually make that change quite quickly and easily across most of the EU countries.

The big problem of course is how to change education in the Islamic world. Ie – how to stop the Islamic countries indoctrinating children from birth with lifelong belief in the existence of Allah, paradise, prayers, miracles and the absolute word of God in the Holy books.

But even so, just making that sort of change to childrens education (and in fact to adult education) in the less religious parts of the EU would be a very good start (e.g. UK and Scandinavian countries).
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
All that will take years. And you can't expect people in the West to "turn the other cheek" to Islamic Extremism in the mean time.
The real problem..and I think we have seen a number of examples here..is that some on the Radical Left have totally bought into the idea that Islamic Extremist are just misguided "Anti Colonlist Freedom Fighters" and spend an awful lot of time basically excusing their actions under the guise of "Explaning and Understanding" it.
And don't think for second that the Islamic Extermists don't understand this and exploit it.

I agree with everything IanS says here and although I concur with you dudalb, I haven't heard of any actions we can take, to speed the process up. So much from the so called Radical Left on this thread as you say. Those of us who recognise Islam, the religion, as being a problem slandered as Islamophobic. Funny how when others level criticism at the Christian religion they are not branded as Christianophobic.

In education the answer lies. Education about the history and roots of all religion, and reduced 'education' about the exclusive correctness, of any particular religion.

A spin off bonus we would get from not funding religious schools, is that students would all go to the same secular schools. Catholics sharing class and playgrounds with Protestants, atheists, and Muslim kids. Just think how this would help normalise our society.
__________________
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 May 2019, 02:52 PM   #344
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Some christians are on side with the Problem of Islam:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/chr...ace-of-muslims

This is the problem. This is the sort "solution" hard core Christians will push for. A singling out of Muslims as the enemy, while promoting Christianity as the favoured religion. Most certainly not the best way to handle the situation.
__________________
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 May 2019, 05:09 PM   #345
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,458
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
And some Muslims have the same basic ideas about the Problem of Christinaity.
Pretty clear you cut Islam a lot of slack you do not cut Christians.
Do you ever read posts, or just sit and think you know what's been said?

I cut islam no slack at all, but I will point out they're not all desperate to blow up white people.

I've had pages of equal prominence on the internet for two decades - one lot of Mohammed having sex with a pig, and another of Mary advertising her rates for sex acts.

All religion is idiotic and it's all harmful to some degree - I firmly believe Dawkins' rating teaching children religion is a form of child abuse is correct. But if they don't come preaching at my door, I largely leave them alone, no matter whether they're muslim, christian, scientologists or zoroastrians.
__________________
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 May 2019, 06:01 PM   #346
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,025
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Why is recognising Islam as a problem somehow dismissing the relevance of other problems? We must recognise all problems but this thread specifically is about the Islam one.
You said:-
"I find myself struggling to see a clear way forward for us in the West, as Islam becomes more and more prevalent... The question about the isolation of Jihardist extremists from mainstream Muslims must also be brought into question... 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 say that Islam is the problem, but the problem you are describing is fanatical belief - not Islam. If Islam didn't exist these people would just find something else to pin their fanaticism on (and they do). But you insist on zeroing in on Islam as the 'cause'. It's not. Most of the so-called Muslim terrorism in the World is actually asymmetric warfare, and the conflicts are over cultural and political issues rather the religion itself (eg. the Uyghurs in China). Muslims, Christians, Buddhists - any group that is being oppressed may turn to it - no matter what religion they belong to.

Your concern about Islam becoming "more and more prevalent" is unwarranted. More Muslims doesn't equate to more jihadists any more than more Christians equates to more white supremacists. While Islam may be the 'fastest growing' religion, it is not projected to match Christianity's numbers until after 2050, and Christians who feel threatened by the Muslim hordes need not worry since most of that growth is in sub-Saharan Africa (Muslim populations in many other areas are actually declining).

If Muslims are accepted into multicultural societies rather than discriminated against they are far less likely to succumb to extremism. You ask "how do we cope?". The answer is, by not labeling Islam as 'the problem', and addressing the real causes of extremism.

Violent extremism: is religion the problem or the solution?
Quote:
All religions declare that peace and reconciliation are their goals, yet all too often they appear to exacerbate conflicts.

Why is this?... when it comes to violence in the name of religion – especially in our modern world – it usually has far more to do with belonging.

The swamp of alienation

This tendency generates a mindset in which people see themselves as part of a community of the elect in violent conflict with those who do not share their worldview. Such an ideology can be powerfully attractive to those alienated from wider society...

When religions come together

In particular, we need to highlight where religions show respect for other communities and traditions, and have repudiated the extremist mindset. A notable example was last year’s Marrakech Declaration, rallying support throughout the Muslim world for the historical Charter of Medina, as a commitment to the values of citizenship and the civil rights of other religious communities.

Another example of inter-religious collaboration is the King Abdullah International Centre for Inter-religious and Intercultural Dialogue (KAICIID) established by Saudi Arabia, Spain and Austria, supported by the Holy See...
__________________
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 30th May 2019, 06:49 PM   #347
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,089
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I expected something a little better than this from you arth.
I don't care.
__________________
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 May 2019, 06:55 PM   #348
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,025
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I've had pages of equal prominence on the internet for two decades - one lot of Mohammed having sex with a pig, and another of Mary advertising her rates for sex acts.
Theists please note - Atheism is simply a lack of belief in all those other religions (and to be consistent, yours too). That is the only thing that defines an atheist, and it's not our aim to be dickish about it. This poster who calls himself 'The Atheist' does not in any way represent us.

Quote:
All religion is idiotic and it's all harmful to some degree - I firmly believe Dawkins' rating teaching children religion is a form of child abuse is correct. But if they don't come preaching at my door, I largely leave them alone, no matter whether they're muslim, christian, scientologists or zoroastrians.
Many things are idiotic and harmful to some degree (eg. drinking coffee) but they are not harmful enough to worry about. I was taught religion as a child and I certainly do not consider it abuse. In fact, learning about religion is what turned me into an atheist! And neither did I turn away the Christians who came preaching at my door. I listened to their arguments, read their booklets, and made an informed decision about what (not) to believe.
__________________
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 30th May 2019, 07:13 PM   #349
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,458
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Theists please note - Atheism is simply a lack of belief in all those other religions (and to be consistent, yours too). That is the only thing that defines an atheist, and it's not our aim to be dickish about it. This poster who calls himself 'The Atheist' does not in any way represent us.
That's why I am The Atheist and not just any old atheist.

There's a law in NZ against libellous blasphemy, so I try very hard to meet the bar for prosecution.
__________________
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 31st May 2019, 02:32 AM   #350
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 GDon View Post
The declaration of belief in Islam doesn't seem to be the motivator for terrorism though.

If a Muslim said "Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God", you wouldn't think "OMG, he must be a terrorist!"

The motivation seems to be found in: "... until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight."

From this I infer that he will stop the fight once the bombing, gassing and torture of his people stops, even if his religion continues to be Islam.
Then your inference is wrong.
ISIS, Al Qaeda and their ilk adhere to the takfiri doctrine. This states that anyone who does not follow their own version of Islam is not a Muslim, and therefore an apostate. Apostasy is punishable by death.
That the quoted statement is takfiri can be seen by its naming "democratically-elected governments". Democracy is considered to be non-Islamic, as indeed are all other forms of government with the exception of sharia.
Their goals are quite simple: they will not stop fighting until or unless the population of the entire world either converts or is killed. Takfiri doctrine explicitly sanctions the killing of civilians, and also the use of suicide bombing.
This is entirely based on their version of Islam, and is, I think, quite clearly the source of the motivation for many, if not most, modern jihadists. To say that the killing will stop when Western involvement in ME countries ends is merely wishful thinking. As long as these people continue to believe in this form of Islam, they will keep on killing.
__________________
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 31st May 2019, 04:02 AM   #351
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,588
Originally Posted by Egg View Post
Well, no, of course they weren't justified if I base my judgement on my own standards. But then I'd also have a hard time justifying many of the actions by our governments and our soldiers in the Middle East. I see no reason to doubt that the terrorists believed that included bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture - I think your descriptions of the military actions probably paint much of what happened and why in a pretty favorable light - no doubt there was quite a different spin going around in some Muslim circles.

I don't deny a religious component, but I think the motivations can be largely explained with the religious part being little more than a tribal identifier. That's not to say there aren't some problematic and dangerous interpretations of Islam around, but there are also many Muslims who share the outrage at the military actions but would never retaliate in such a way, citing their interpretation of Islam as part of why they couldn't justify such actions.

OK, well we are not so far apart on what you have said above.

But just as a couple of other observations -

- the London Tube bombers and indeed all of the hundreds (it's actually now thousands) of attackers and plotters across Europe (eg where their plots have mostly been intercepted, so that we know about them) were objecting (with murderous rage) to what they said was UK & EU military action in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and more recently in Syria (though afaik, the UK has not had very much direct military involvement in Syria) … OK, so they are saying they have enormous concerns about that. Well …

… how concerned have any UK or EU Muslims been about any other military action or other violent atrocities around the world? Are they also as murderously enraged about UK foreign policy in other countries that are not Muslim? Well the answer is a whopping great big fat NO! … no, they have absolutely no care or concern whatsoever to protest in any way at all about any such foreign situations, except where it's happening in Islamic countries... now, why is that? If they are so concerned about injustice and persecution and oppression around the world, then why are they only ever concerned about it if it involves Muslims?


The answer is inescapable – they are concerned only if they think it's an attack on their religious faith. They are religiously concerned. They are never, none of them, ever concerned at all when it's a military intervention (or a political intervention) against any other defenceless or impoverished people ... in fact they have so little interest that they probably never even bother to listen to or read any news about how the western democracies might be criticised for any oppressive intervention in other situations around the world … they are only concerned when they think it is religious Muslims who they think are under oppression or attack …

… that should tell you that their enraged concern is purely on the basis of their religion.

And apart from that -

When you say “there are also many Muslims who share the outrage at the military actions but would never retaliate in such a way ….” …. well of course there are many Muslims around the world who would never retaliate with murderous violence. Because you are talking about 1.5 billion people! Even in the UK, there are now about 3.5 million Muslims. Those are very big numbers, so of course amongst all of those there are vast numbers of them who would not personally go onto the the streets of the UK (or elsewhere) trying to kill everyone around them ...

... but how many UK Muslims do you think have answered public opinion polls saying they do support, not just what Bin Laden did on 9-11, but actually support what the four London Tube bombers did? The problem is that there is a very large number of UK Muslims who do support such terrorist mass murder attacks in the UK and across Europe ...

... how many UK Muslims do you think support the idea of Islamic law replacing UK law in Britain? Or how many do you think support the belief that all nations of the world should be ruled by an Islamic religious government? How many do you think believe that it's a requirement of the faith which dominates their lives from the Koran?

I have already pointed out that MI5 intelligence services in the UK have several times released official figure showing that at any one time they have about 4000 UK Muslims under anti-terrorist surveillance. And already pointed out that MI5 themselves have said that they do not have enough staff or financial resources to make the list any longer than that (ie, that's about the maximum number they can keep under some sort of effective observation or checks).

In the UK, over the last 7 years, about 900 UK Muslims have actually travelled to Syria to join IS (Daesh). That's an enormous number (even more have travelled from France). It's obvious from numbers like that, that there are very many more than 4000 UK Muslims that really should be under surveillance as a potentially lethal threat to the UK public.

However, all that aside – if UK Muslims object to the UK's involvement in military action in places like Iraq and Syria (how much military action has the UK taken in Syria??), then they can do what any of us can do in any western EU democracy – they have wide-scale freedom of speech to protest on the streets, to voice their anger to their local MP or to write letters of protest to the government, to set up petitions for people to sign etc. They can campaign during local and national elections for a change of government with different policies. That's how democracies work. At least we have those options in any western democracy … you would have no such options and no voice at all in any country under control of IS or Al-Q (ie the very groups that they claim to support in their Jihad to create a so-called Caliphate).

If Muslims living the UK, France, Germany etc. really feel that strongly about fighting for whatever they think is the actual cause (whether they say that's a religious cause or any other cause such as merely deciding that they have to fight an armed war in Syria or wherever), then perhaps they should travel to Syria (or wherever) and join that war. But if in doing that, they get themselves and others (eg any family) killed, then that was entirely their choice and their fault. On which note – that brings up that whole issue of the foreign Jihadi fighters and there numerous Jihadi Brides with all their very young children who have been captured after their final defeat in Baghouz, and where they are now saying they want to return to where they came from in the UK, US, France, Russia, Brazil, Germany, Sweden etc., …. so what should we do about all of those people? … did they simply “make a mistake” as some of them now say? … a sort-of “innocent mistake” that anyone could make? … did they really not know what they were getting into?

Last edited by IanS; 31st May 2019 at 04:11 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 31st May 2019, 06:41 AM   #352
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,588
Originally Posted by Egg View Post
Well, no, of course they weren't justified if I base my judgement on my own standards. But then I'd also have a hard time justifying many of the actions by our governments and our soldiers in the Middle East. I see no reason to doubt that the terrorists believed that included bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture - I think your descriptions of the military actions probably paint much of what happened and why in a pretty favorable light - no doubt there was quite a different spin going around in some Muslim circles.

I don't deny a religious component, but I think the motivations can be largely explained with the religious part being little more than a tribal identifier. That's not to say there aren't some problematic and dangerous interpretations of Islam around, but there are also many Muslims who share the outrage at the military actions but would never retaliate in such a way, citing their interpretation of Islam as part of why they couldn't justify such actions.


Just one other point on the above – I noticed that you still highlighted (third time) the fact that attackers such as the London Tube bombers do actually believe that western military forces in far away Muslim lands are there murdering, raping, gassing and torturing their women & children (they often specifically emphasise that it's happening to the women and children). But I think we agree that just because they believe such things (and regardless of whether any of that actually happens in the way UK & EU Muslims seem to think it does), those beliefs about persecution of Muslims cannot possibly justify the suicide bombings and other such attacks and plots that we have seen all over Europe.

Is that correct? Ie;- you do agree that they have no honest justification at all for what they do when they attack ordinary members of the public all over Europe and elsewhere, yes?

If you agree with that, then that removes 90% of the disagreement between us.

All that's left is whether or not the Islamist Jihadi's around the world were ever, in the first place, justified in starting a terrorist-style violent opposition against the governments that they did not like in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, and of course Palestine/Israel. I don't think we really want to go back into the original history of how all of that started and who was to blame in the very first place. But this has been going on since at least 1948 when at the end of WW2 the so-called “Allies” decided to create the state of Israel.

But to simplify that – prior to 9-11, at the end of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, Bin Laden and his 3000 or so Al-Qaeda fighters were living in an apparently peaceful way alongside the Taliban who had taken power there. Despite all sorts of more minor skirmishes that had previously taken place between more limited numbers of US forces and Al-Qaeda fighters across a wider set of nations around that region of the world, neither the US or the UK or anyone else was afaik seriously threatening any force against Al-Qaeda or the Taliban in Afghanistan. So what then was the justification for Bin Laden, Al-Queda and the Taliban hatching a plot to fly 4 passenger airlines into crowded buildings in the USA? What was the reason why that was supposed to be a fair, reasonable or honourable thing to do?

I know that we can find all sorts of reasons why armed Islamist insurgent groups like Al Qaeda disliked the western governments and disliked the USA in particular, and why they made repeated relatively small scale attacks on US airbases and other military targets in the Middle East, but specifically on 9-11, why was that sort massive attack justified on the unsuspecting public in a country thousands of miles away?

I don't want to know what reasons Bin Laden or other Islamic extremists ever gave for the attack. I want to know what real honest justifications (if any) could be said in favour of making that attack?
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 31st May 2019, 07:04 AM   #353
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Do you ever read posts, or just sit and think you know what's been said?

I cut islam no slack at all, but I will point out they're not all desperate to blow up white people.

I've had pages of equal prominence on the internet for two decades - one lot of Mohammed having sex with a pig, and another of Mary advertising her rates for sex acts.

All religion is idiotic and it's all harmful to some degree - I firmly believe Dawkins' rating teaching children religion is a form of child abuse is correct. But if they don't come preaching at my door, I largely leave them alone, no matter whether they're muslim, christian, scientologists or zoroastrians.
Got it in one!!!!!!!!!
fuelair 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 31st May 2019, 02:48 PM   #354
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
You said:-
"I find myself struggling to see a clear way forward for us in the West, as Islam becomes more and more prevalent... The question about the isolation of Jihardist extremists from mainstream Muslims must also be brought into question... 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 say that Islam is the problem, but the problem you are describing is fanatical belief - not Islam. If Islam didn't exist these people would just find something else to pin their fanaticism on (and they do). But you insist on zeroing in on Islam as the 'cause'. It's not. Most of the so-called Muslim terrorism in the World is actually asymmetric warfare, and the conflicts are over cultural and political issues rather the religion itself (eg. the Uyghurs in China). Muslims, Christians, Buddhists - any group that is being oppressed may turn to it - no matter what religion they belong to.
Oh sure how could I miss that! The problem is fanaticism itself not what they are fanatical about. I hope there are no fanatical Jains in my part of the world. We could have a plague of flies because they won't kill them.

Quote:
Your concern about Islam becoming "more and more prevalent" is unwarranted. More Muslims doesn't equate to more jihadists any more than more Christians equates to more white supremacists. While Islam may be the 'fastest growing' religion, it is not projected to match Christianity's numbers until after 2050, and Christians who feel threatened by the Muslim hordes need not worry since most of that growth is in sub-Saharan Africa (Muslim populations in many other areas are actually declining).
Oh so we can rest easy until the Muslim numbers overtake the Christian one then? You really can't see what a crap argument this is can you?

Quote:
If Muslims are accepted into multicultural societies rather than discriminated against they are far less likely to succumb to extremism. You ask "how do we cope?". The answer is, by not labeling Islam as 'the problem', and addressing the real causes of extremism.

Violent extremism: is religion the problem or the solution?
I suppose you missed if because you don't seem to bother reading those posts you so aggressively attack, but what I am suggesting is welcoming Muslims without discriminating against them. I am all about trying to reduce religious belief across the board. That we recognise Islam as being the most toxic religion we have to deal, with is not something we should rub Muslims noses in.
__________________
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 31st May 2019, 02:58 PM   #355
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,073
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Theists please note - Atheism is simply a lack of belief in all those other religions (and to be consistent, yours too). That is the only thing that defines an atheist, and it's not our aim to be dickish about it. This poster who calls himself 'The Atheist' does not in any way represent us.

Many things are idiotic and harmful to some degree (eg. drinking coffee) but they are not harmful enough to worry about. I was taught religion as a child and I certainly do not consider it abuse. In fact, learning about religion is what turned me into an atheist! And neither did I turn away the Christians who came preaching at my door. I listened to their arguments, read their booklets, and made an informed decision about what (not) to believe.

I find myself agreeing with The Atheist here and I agree with Dawkins also, that indoctrinating children with religion is child abuse. I am one so abused although only mildly compared to some. I suffered years of anguish about my inevitable fiery fate, until liberated from religion by Bertrand Russel.

So you read the "Watchtower" and such magazines with interest do you? I chuck them in the bin.
__________________
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 31st May 2019, 06:38 PM   #356
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,458
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
So you read the "Watchtower" and such magazines with interest do you? I chuck them in the bin.
I LOVE Jehovah's Witnesses.

I call the kids and tell them to look at people so vile they would withhold a life-saving blood transfusion for their own child.

Then I shut the door.

True story.
__________________
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 31st May 2019, 10:38 PM   #357
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,088
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Originally Posted by GDon
The motivation seems to be found in: "... until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight."

From this I infer that he will stop the fight once the bombing, gassing and torture of his people stops, even if his religion continues to be Islam.
Then your inference is wrong.
ISIS, Al Qaeda and their ilk adhere to the takfiri doctrine.
You mean that my inference of words by one person is wrong, because another person might think differently? That makes no sense. I was inferring from his words, which are clear.

Anyway, you are doing the same thing that Thor 2 does: conflating various groups. If the question in the OP was "Isis. How do we cope?" or "The takfiri doctrine. How do we cope?", you'd almost certainly get a different answer to "Islam. How do we cope?"

And that's the issue: to combat a problem, you need to clearly define what it is. Conflating "Islam" and "Islamic terrorism" as though they were presenting the same problems is simply wrong.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
This is entirely based on their version of Islam, and is, I think, quite clearly the source of the motivation for many, if not most, modern jihadists. To say that the killing will stop when Western involvement in ME countries ends is merely wishful thinking. As long as these people continue to believe in this form of Islam, they will keep on killing.
What percentage of Muslims are Jihadists? From that, what percentage of Jihadists would stop fighting if the West stopped bombing Muslim countries? What percentage of Jihadists would continue killing regardless?

I don't expect you to have the answers, but if we want to solve a problem we need to accurately define what the problem is in the first place. Simply labelling it as a problem with Islam is not productive. This is not a defence of Islam, but a defence of clear thinking.

Last edited by GDon; 31st May 2019 at 10:46 PM.
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 1st June 2019, 01:47 AM   #358
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,588
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
The declaration of belief in Islam doesn't seem to be the motivator for terrorism though.

If a Muslim said "Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God", you wouldn't think "OMG, he must be a terrorist!"

The motivation seems to be found in: "... until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight."

From this I infer that he will stop the fight once the bombing, gassing and torture of his people stops, even if his religion continues to be Islam.

On the first highlight - the West (the UK in that particular persons quote) is not "bombing, gassing, imprisoning and torturing" "his" people. That quote was from one of the London Tube bombers, he was referring to people in Iraq and Afghanistan at that time (2005), but he lived 3000 miles away in Leeds in the UK! The people he's referring to as being "bombed and gassed etc." are not "my people" at all ... he has no connection with any of them whatsoever, EXCEPT for the fact that he shares their same religious beliefs in Islam.

So, firstly if his description/claim means anything at all, then it means he is fighting a religious war on their behalf (ie on behalf of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan), by blowing to pieces hundreds of ordinary members of the public on London tube trains.

But secondly, "my people" were not being "bombed, gassed, imprisoned, tortured" in Iraq or Afghanistan at all. Afaik, there was no gassing of anyone, and there was certainly no torture of any normal members of the public in those countries. In the case of Iraq (which is what the London Tube bombers seemed to be particularly concerned with in 2005) the only people who were being bombed and later imprisoned, were the fighters in Saddam Husseins army! It was their military forces that were being bombed and fired upon by invading western forces ... and those Iraqi military forces were of course firing back ... that was a battle between two armies ... it was not as you are trying to make it sound, and as terrorists like the London Tube bombers try to claim, a war where the US and UK indiscriminately and deliberately bombs all the innocent normal public of Iraq.

Also, that quote from the London bombers is absolutely typical of what almost all of the Islamic terrorists have said when making attacks in Europe. But where are they getting that belief about the UK France, Germany, Spain etc. all "bombing, gassing, torturing our people"? ... they are getting it from the internet where they go searching for Islamic propaganda websites that show fake film of people in war zones in various parts of the Middle East, and where their propaganda films dishonestly claim these are scenes of how the west has deliberately slaughtered ordinary innocent Muslim women and children ...

... that is - groups like the London bombers, are deliberately allowing themselves to be persuaded buy entirely faked propaganda films put on to the internet by groups like IS and Al-Q. And you are repeating the same propaganda films as if you too are happy to believe it.
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 1st June 2019, 02:39 AM   #359
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 GDon View Post

Anyway, you are doing the same thing that Thor 2 does: conflating various groups. If the question in the OP was "Isis. How do we cope?" or "The takfiri doctrine. How do we cope?", you'd almost certainly get a different answer to "Islam. How do we cope?"

And that's the issue: to combat a problem, you need to clearly define what it is. Conflating "Islam" and "Islamic terrorism" as though they were presenting the same problems is simply wrong.
Actually, I don't think I was. I was quite explicit in naming takfiris as a source of the problem, rather than talking about the entirety of Islam. Nowhere in any of my posts have I said anything conflating 'Islam' as a whole with 'Islamic terrorism'.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
What percentage of Muslims are Jihadists? From that, what percentage of Jihadists would stop fighting if the West stopped bombing Muslim countries?
I am surpised that, for someone so interested in clear definitions of problems, you should throw in this phrase so readily.
What purpose does inserting the word 'Muslim' into the description of a country serve? Is it your belief that these countries are being targetted because they are Muslim? If not, then why describe them in this way, rather than, for example, 'countries experiencing conflicts', 'countries whose peoples are under attack from dictators and jihadists', or, even better. 'Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan'?
The issue I have with this glib generalisation is that it feeds the false perception that the West is engaged in a war with Islam. It is this pernicious idea that fuels so much of the Islamist terrorism, and the high levels of distrust of the West in the Muslim world. (I read the Arab papers regularly: this is how I know).

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
What percentage of Jihadists would continue killing regardless?

I don't expect you to have the answers, but if we want to solve a problem we need to accurately define what the problem is in the first place. Simply labelling it as a problem with Islam is not productive. This is not a defence of Islam, but a defence of clear thinking.
This is a good point, and it deserves a thoughtful answer.

To come back to my earlier point about the perception by Muslims that their religion is under attack, and to focus on one specific country, the UK (where I'm from), this idea is spread by fundamentalist preachers.
In the UK, some 45% of mosques are controlled by the Deobandi. This is a fundamentalist sect, which has been involved in spreading jihadism in the UK, and which has links with numerous Islamist groups including the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi..
Another 6% of the mosques are Salafi. Salafis are another fundamentalist sect, close to the Wahabbis, and also noted for their adherence to violent jihad and general intolerance. The leaders of many of the most infamous Islamist terrorist groups are Wahabbis or Salafis.
Another 3% are Maudoodi, who believe this:
Quote:
Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it.
Thus, well over half of Britain's mosques are controlled by fundamentalist, intolerant, jihad-preaching denominations of Islam.
Now, the majority of Britain's Muslims are peaceful, and non-denominational, but it's easy to see where the delusion of persecution comes from, and how and where people are being radicalised.
This brings me to your other point about why this is a problem of Islam, rather than ISIS or takfiri.
This is why:
1. The presence in the Quran of numerous verses explicitly calling for violence against non-believers.
2. The body of Muslim scholarship supporting these ideas.
3. The lack of a centralised structure in Islam. There is no Islamic version of the Pope. This means that pretty much anyone can set themselves up as an imam, and issue fatwas that carry as much weight (theologically speaking) as those of any other. It also means that there is no means of expelling jihadists and hate preachers, and no means for Islam as a whole to reject such teachings as an official policy.
4. The role of Islamic, or Islamic-influenced, governments in spreading fundamentalist, intolerant and jihadist versions of Islam around the world. This includes the governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan and Gaza.
Quote:
In July 2017, a report by the Henry Jackson Society, which was commissioned by the UK government, said that Middle Eastern nations are providing financial support to mosques and Islamic educational institutions, which have been linked to the spread of extremist material with "an illiberal, bigoted Wahhabi ideology". The report said that the number of Salafi and Wahhabi mosques in Britain had increased from 68 in 2007 to 110 in 2014.
5. It is also worth noting, IMHO, that, if Islam were the peaceful, tolerant religion you and others seem to be claiming it to be, it has done a very poor job of isolating, containing and combatting the quite undue influence that the more violent and intolerant sects have. I cannot think of another religion that has this kind of problem. It would be like Westboro Baptist Church controlling half of the churches in the US. The only reason we're having this conversation is because Islam is the only religion that has spawned such numbers of intolerant fanatics in recent years.
Just to emphasise: I live in a Muslim country, and have lived in several others before. People here are much like people anywhere else, but their religion and their governments are doing them a great disservice. I have nothing against Muslims in general, nor do I support injustice anywhere (I have stated several times my opposition to the Iraq invasion, for example). We need to find some way to solve the inherent problems in Islam, peacefully, and soon, because otherwise the conflicts will just go on and on. Naturally enough, I expect Muslims themselves to do this, but I see no reason why non-Muslims can't talk about it as well.
__________________
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 1st June 2019, 01:39 PM   #360
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 LOVE Jehovah's Witnesses.

I call the kids and tell them to look at people so vile they would withhold a life-saving blood transfusion for their own child.

Then I shut the door.

True story.

And I suppose if they were Muslims knocking on your door you would cover them with big sloppy kisses.

I have known some Jehovah's Witnesses quite well from a wife's family. Pretty harmless lot actually, but so naive and unworldly it can be painful to talk to them. Not into bombing so much.
__________________
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
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 12:39 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.