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.
Tags anti-Islam rhetoric , anti-islam sentiments , atheism , islam

Reply
Old 16th October 2017, 08:39 AM   #41
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,520
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
As bad as I think Christianity is and I think it is horrible and immoral, Islam is much much worse.
If we are talking strictly about scripture, the Old Testament is as horrible as it gets. There is no getting around that all three religions are based on the same Abrahamic God. The God which decided that man was so wicked that he decided to wipe out all life on the planet except for a tiny few. The same God who told Abraham to kill his son. The same God who sent two she-bears to kill 42 children who teased Elisha. The same God who allowed the devil to torture Job which included the killing of his wife and 10 children. The same God who endorsed slavery in Exodus 21 and Leviticus and doesn't even revoke it in the New Testament. The same God who made the penalty for working on the Sabbath death. The same God who ordered the Israelites to kill all the men women and children of other tribes and take their virgin daughters. The same God that allowed Satan to torture Job over a bet. And oh among Satan's tortures was the killing of Job's wife and 10 children.
The same God that came down in human form to sacrifice himself for a weekend to himself for breaking his own rules. The same God who in the New Testament says that non-believers will be tortured in the lake of fire for eternity.

The reason Islam is worse has more to do with how it is practiced today. The stoning of homosexuals, adulterers and apostates is still practiced today. The idea of Sharia. At least Christianity has a verse that says render unto Caeser what is Caeser's.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 16th October 2017 at 10:34 AM.
acbytesla 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 16th October 2017, 09:18 AM   #42
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The reason Islam is worse has more to do with how it is practiced today. The stoning of homosexuals, adulterers and apostates is still practiced today. The idea of Sharia. At least Christianity has a verse that says render unto Caeser what is Caeser's.
Hudud punishments (stoning, cutting hands off thieves, etc) were applied very rarely prior to the 20th century's radical regimes. Loopholes were quickly invented in medieval society to get around these "mandatory" punishments. So it has much more to do with contemporary political radicalism than with Islam.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 16th October 2017, 09:40 AM   #43
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Hudud punishments (stoning, cutting hands off thieves, etc) were applied very rarely prior to the 20th century's radical regimes. Loopholes were quickly invented in medieval society to get around these "mandatory" punishments. So it has much more to do with contemporary political radicalism than with Islam.
So you argue that some religion is unproblematic by concluding from past and present that only in presence of certain external factors the clearly within the religions theology existing brutal rules are applied and that otherwise the religion is mostly harmless?

That is like arguing the flu is no problem, because it normally does not kill healthy adults; and that therefore nobody should care about the flu but that being old, young, weak, etc. is the only relevant factor.

And no, you cannot counter that argument by talking about how some other disease is potentially as dangerous as the flu, if currently only the flu kills in relevant numbers.


No wonder Dawkins sometimes lashes out, if he faces such abmyssal arguments.
Carn 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 16th October 2017, 09:48 AM   #44
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 314
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Hudud punishments (stoning, cutting hands off thieves, etc) were applied very rarely prior to the 20th century's radical regimes. Loopholes were quickly invented in medieval society to get around these "mandatory" punishments. So it has much more to do with contemporary political radicalism than with Islam.
Wait, what?

They're performing this "contemporary political radicalism" in the name of Allah. So, how is NOT to do with Islam?
desmirelle 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 16th October 2017, 09:50 AM   #45
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,287
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The reason Islam is worse has more to do with how it is practiced today. The stoning of homosexuals, adulterers and apostates is still practiced today. The idea of Sharia. At least Christianity has a verse that says render unto Caeser what is Caeser's.
Ultimately it all comes down to how it's practiced, but Christianity was, due to that phrase, ultimately apolitical, while Islam is, at its core, the opposite. I think that's an important difference.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon 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 16th October 2017, 09:54 AM   #46
porch
Muse
 
porch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 557
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
So you argue that some religion is unproblematic by concluding from past and present that only in presence of certain external factors the clearly within the religions theology existing brutal rules are applied and that otherwise the religion is mostly harmless?

That is like arguing the flu is no problem, because it normally does not kill healthy adults; and that therefore nobody should care about the flu but that being old, young, weak, etc. is the only relevant factor.

And no, you cannot counter that argument by talking about how some other disease is potentially as dangerous as the flu, if currently only the flu kills in relevant numbers.


No wonder Dawkins sometimes lashes out, if he faces such abmyssal arguments.

No. Religion is one component of culture. It receives input from, and provides feedback to the other components of culture. To try to isolate it is pointless.
porch 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 16th October 2017, 10:03 AM   #47
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,520
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Hudud punishments (stoning, cutting hands off thieves, etc) were applied very rarely prior to the 20th century's radical regimes. Loopholes were quickly invented in medieval society to get around these "mandatory" punishments. So it has much more to do with contemporary political radicalism than with Islam.
Excuse me?

In 2015, a woman was stoned to death in Saudi Arabia for adultery. Her male partner received a hundred lashes. In 2015 a women was stoned to death in Afghanistan for adultery as well. A woman was stoned to death in Iran for adultery in 2009. Notice, it's almost always women?
Yes you are right that in Muslim countries they have created some loopholes that does make these punishments more rare however I doubt people in Western nations would think very highly of the loopholes.
If a Muslim in Saudi Arabia pronounces that he doesn't believe in God he will be put to death if he doesn't recant. How crazy is that? They always recant.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 16th October 2017 at 10:07 AM.
acbytesla 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 16th October 2017, 10:17 AM   #48
porch
Muse
 
porch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 557
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Excuse me?

In 2015, a woman was stoned to death in Saudi Arabia for adultery. Her male partner received a hundred lashes. In 2015 a women was stoned to death in Afghanistan for adultery as well. A woman was stoned to death in Iran for adultery in 2009. Notice, it's almost always women?
Yes you are right that in Muslim countries they have created some loopholes that does make these punishments more rare however I doubt people in Western nations would think very highly of the loopholes.
If a Muslim in Saudi Arabia pronounces that he doesn't believe in God he will be put to death if he doesn't recant. How crazy is that? They always recant.


Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Hudud punishments (stoning, cutting hands off thieves, etc) were applied very rarely prior to the 20th century's radical regimes. Loopholes were quickly invented in medieval society to get around these "mandatory" punishments. So it has much more to do with contemporary political radicalism than with Islam.


I think that might have been overlooked.
porch 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 16th October 2017, 10:18 AM   #49
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,520
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Ultimately it all comes down to how it's practiced, but Christianity was, due to that phrase, ultimately apolitical, while Islam is, at its core, the opposite. I think that's an important difference.
It hasn't always worked that way. Christians haven't always paid heed to that verse.
For example, the inquisition, the crusades, witch burnings etc. That verse is something that Christians can and do point to for being OK with the separation of Church and State and a more live and let live attitude.

Unfortunately, from my understanding there isn't a similar verse anywhere in the Quran. In fact, the opposite seems to be true with Islam and the idea to implement shariah.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla 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 16th October 2017, 10:36 AM   #50
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by porch View Post
No. Religion is one component of culture. It receives input from, and provides feedback to the other components of culture. To try to isolate it is pointless.
I did not isolate it.

You missed that TubbaBlubba based his arguments on the premise that there have been those problematic hudud punshiments from the beginning and still remain, but at many times were just avoided by loopholes; but that still means they remained as put down in 7th or 8th or 9th century.

So TubbaBlubba agreed that there is some so far unchanging element of the cultures in question.

And recognizing such an element for what it is and trying to understand which effect it will have under which circumstances is not isolating it.
Carn 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 16th October 2017, 10:44 AM   #51
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Unfortunately, from my understanding there isn't a similar verse anywhere in the Quran. In fact, the opposite seems to be true with Islam and the idea to implement shariah.
I think the problem is only in part with words, but also depends on the stories of the founder.

Think of a bunch of buddhist; one of them raises his voice and says:
"Let's follow the great example of Buddha, draw our swords, conquer the world and enjoy the riches we plunder."

There is some decent probability that instead of joining in other Buddhist might argue, that that is utter nonesense as Buddha taught to despise wealth and not to get entangled in the affairs of the world, which one surely will be, if one tries to conquer it.

Setting out to conquer the world is hard to cope with following Buddha, even although there is no divine revealed sacred scripture.

On the other hand, suggesting to go on a raid to get some plunder and slaves is not that hard to fit together with following Muhammed, as he supposedly did that himself to some extent.
Carn 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 16th October 2017, 11:17 AM   #52
porch
Muse
 
porch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 557
In my view, there are as many Christianities as there are Christians, as many Islams as there are Muslims, as many Jainisms as there are Jains, and so on. I'm not sure that any religion has an immutable core.
porch 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 16th October 2017, 11:24 AM   #53
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by porch View Post
In my view, there are as many Christianities as there are Christians, as many Islams as there are Muslims, as many Jainisms as there are Jains, and so on. I'm not sure that any religion has an immutable core.
Check the data, there is something called hudud punishment in Islam, which has not changed in the last thousand years or so in any relevant way; only to which extent it has been applied has changed.

Do not call it an immutable core - thereby you set up a strawman - call it a so far unchanging element.

For example the mosaic penalties of old testament are also a element of Judaism and Christianity that has not changed since some 2000+ years; their application might have changed.

All religions have some so far unchanging elements and many little changed elements. Of course also many changing elements.

If you ignore this, you ignore reality.
Carn 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 16th October 2017, 11:29 AM   #54
porch
Muse
 
porch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 557
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
I think the problem is only in part with words, but also depends on the stories of the founder.

Think of a bunch of buddhist; one of them raises his voice and says:
"Let's follow the great example of Buddha, draw our swords, conquer the world and enjoy the riches we plunder."

There is some decent probability that instead of joining in other Buddhist might argue, that that is utter nonesense as Buddha taught to despise wealth and not to get entangled in the affairs of the world, which one surely will be, if one tries to conquer it.

Setting out to conquer the world is hard to cope with following Buddha, even although there is no divine revealed sacred scripture.

On the other hand, suggesting to go on a raid to get some plunder and slaves is not that hard to fit together with following Muhammed, as he supposedly did that himself to some extent.


And yet . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence


Is anti-homosexuality a fundamental part of Christianity? In the United Church of Canada, there is debate about whether to allow homosexual clergy. In the American politico-religious milieu, there is debate about legal marriage for homosexuals. In Uganda, there is debate about whether homosexuality deserves the death penalty, or a lesser criminal charge. Who has the real, and who is using loopholes?
porch 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 16th October 2017, 11:37 AM   #55
porch
Muse
 
porch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 557
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Check the data, there is something called hudud punishment in Islam, which has not changed in the last thousand years or so in any relevant way; only to which extent it has been applied has changed.

Do not call it an immutable core - thereby you set up a strawman - call it a so far unchanging element.

For example the mosaic penalties of old testament are also a element of Judaism and Christianity that has not changed since some 2000+ years; their application might have changed.

All religions have some so far unchanging elements and many little changed elements. Of course also many changing elements.

If you ignore this, you ignore reality.


I did not mean to set up a strawman. Sorry, I didn't see this post before I made my last one. Does that mean that we agree, then, that there is no immutable core to any religion? And are Christianity and Islam the same in that they both have some "so far unchanging elements"? And that, even there, the application of those elements has changed over time?
porch 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 16th October 2017, 11:38 AM   #56
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,520
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Check the data, there is something called hudud punishment in Islam, which has not changed in the last thousand years or so in any relevant way; only to which extent it has been applied has changed.

Do not call it an immutable core - thereby you set up a strawman - call it a so far unchanging element.

For example the mosaic penalties of old testament are also a element of Judaism and Christianity that has not changed since some 2000+ years; their application might have changed.

All religions have some so far unchanging elements and many little changed elements. Of course also many changing elements.

If you ignore this, you ignore reality.
I'm sure that there will always be aspects of Islam that I don't understand mostly because I have little desire to learn every detail of every mythology. I do know that many Muslims take it seriously which I find insane. But I also find many Christians that take their religion seriously as insane as well. For example, it's extremely difficult to be openly gay in most predominantly Muslim nations.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla 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 16th October 2017, 11:29 PM   #57
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by porch View Post
I did not mean to set up a strawman. Sorry, I didn't see this post before I made my last one. Does that mean that we agree, then, that there is no immutable core to any religion? And are Christianity and Islam the same in that they both have some "so far unchanging elements"? And that, even there, the application of those elements has changed over time?
Saying there is an "immutable core" is a prediction about the future developments of religion; as there is no real empirical understanding of developments one cannot say whether there is something that never changes.

But i think some so far unchanging elements might also remain unchanging in the future.

E.g. in Christianity that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead is probably unchanging and i would bet that it never changes into "Jesus was to be burned at the stake, but made himself fire-immune and yet gave his body the appearance of being burned and never died".


The issue in my eyes is whether some unchanging elements are a political problem.

And one such problematic and so far unchanging (or nearly except for some minority movements) elements of Islam is that Quran is verbatim from the perfectly good creator of the universe without any error in this game of chinese whisper (Allah -> Gabriel -> Mohammed -> someone remembering it -> someone who wrote it down -> someone who compiled it).

That has consequences.

For example that at some place, at some time and in some circumstances the perfectly good course of action (what else would a perfectly good creator suggest?) was to
http://corpus.quran.com/translation....ter=9&verse=29
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

One can quibble a bit with the exact wording; but its about fighting certain people till they pay tribute.

And that makes "abusing" Islam pretty easy; just convince that "some place" is here, "some time" is now and "some circumstances" are fulfilled and one can claim the mantle of perfect goodness for waging a war till the other side is ready to pay tribute.

This and other things in Islam can - at least currently - only be put into hibernation (by successfully arguing its not this place or this time), but cannot be discarded as wrong or at least as wrong for the future.

And such a thing is not that present in other religions.

Closest are Christianity and Judaism with old testament; but Jews were "tamed" mostly by the Romans 2000 years ago (meaning brutally slaughtered for trying to uphold OT teaching that the promised land is theirs) and are simply not numerous enough for serious buisiness; and in Christianity there is a clear chance between the old covenant of OT and the new covenant of NT; so there is some "intelectual leverage" against massacres OT-style (i know, that leverage has not always worked or was used; but there is some change from OT to NT and hence generally disregarding some OT teaching is plausible).

So i think that acting as if Islam is just exactly problematic or unproblematic as any other religion, is ignoring some of the so far unchanging elements of Islam; at least currently in Islam there are greater problems than in many other religions and this is also due to the "theology" of Islam (in combination with other factors).

And one should hence not ignore the "theology" of Islam and its so far unchanging or little changing elements.
Carn 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 17th October 2017, 12:30 AM   #58
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
So you argue that some religion is unproblematic by concluding from past and present that only in presence of certain external factors the clearly within the religions theology existing brutal rules are applied and that otherwise the religion is mostly harmless?

That is like arguing the flu is no problem, because it normally does not kill healthy adults; and that therefore nobody should care about the flu but that being old, young, weak, etc. is the only relevant factor.

And no, you cannot counter that argument by talking about how some other disease is potentially as dangerous as the flu, if currently only the flu kills in relevant numbers.


No wonder Dawkins sometimes lashes out, if he faces such abmyssal arguments.
It all depends on whether you want to understand Islam as it is and has been practiced by its adherents and the overall effects it's had on society, or if you want to paint a caricature that gives you a way to express your deep-seated bigotry in a socially acceptable manner.

The problem here is, instead of saying, "huh, that's interesting, I wonder what this implies about my conception of Islam. Maybe I should study history and tradition in these regions a bit closer to better understand what is happening" you just doubled down. Despite the fact that this was clearly new information of monumental importance to the understanding of Islam today, you paid it no heed, because you don't care about the truth.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 17th October 2017 at 01:06 AM.
TubbaBlubba 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 17th October 2017, 01:13 AM   #59
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,620
M
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
And one should hence not ignore the "theology" of Islam and its so far unchanging or little changing elements.
Have you considered that some of these "elements" have deep rotings in MENA cultures and did not always have the implications they had today? That some go far beyond Islam, and that some have nothing at all to do with it?

Frankly, your assertions reek of orientalism. As the "Civilized West" finally realized come the Holocaust, we are just as capable of atrocities. Arguments resting on cultural essentialism are very dangerous.

Have you made a thorough investigation of the pedigree of the phenomena that disgust you so much? Did you know, for example, that the laws about rapists marrying their victims in the Near East to evade punishment derive from 19th-century French law (code Napoleon), and were deeply rooted in an European tradition of abduction and forced marriage? (Rape was generally taken for granted; without it being assumed, the marriage would not have been enforceable as the woman could've requested a nullification).
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 17th October 2017 at 01:15 AM.
TubbaBlubba 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 17th October 2017, 02:57 AM   #60
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,857
Originally Posted by porch View Post
In my view, there are as many Christianities as there are Christians, as many Islams as there are Muslims, as many Jainisms as there are Jains, and so on. I'm not sure that any religion has an immutable core.
Simply, we need to first understand main basis of any religion: Basic, gross or intermediate? Truth, rational or irrational?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar 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 17th October 2017, 02:59 AM   #61
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,857
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Ultimately it all comes down to how it's practiced, but Christianity was, due to that phrase, ultimately apolitical, while Islam is, at its core, the opposite. I think that's an important difference.
I think, first to understand for any religion, whether it is basic/truth, rational/gross or intermediate/irrational based?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar 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 17th October 2017, 04:36 AM   #62
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post

Have you considered that some of these "elements" have deep rotings in MENA cultures and did not always have the implications they had today? That some go far beyond Islam, and that some have nothing at all to do with it?
Would you mind explaining in what way:
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."
is not rooted in Islam itself, which claims that at some time and place the creator of the universe gave this command verbatim to some followers of Islam?

The only disputed issue i ever heard about this, is to whom under which circumstances this is a literal command; nobody ever claimed it has little to do with Islam.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Frankly, your assertions reek of orientalism. As the "Civilized West" finally realized come the Holocaust, we are just as capable of atrocities. Arguments resting on cultural essentialism are very dangerous.
You noticed i rested my argument on undisputed wording of some book?

There is nothing constructed, imposed or "one can view it one way or another" or "imperialism did this" about the fact, that those words (or at least arabic words with a similar meaning) are in that book. So not an argument resting on cultural essentialism (presuming i understand this undefined term correctly; checked some definitions and they are such, that maybe there is absolutely nobody resting his worldview/arguments on cultural essentialism, if taken the definitions at their literal meaning; but i suspect the usual "define lously some nasty sounding thing to use it in ad hominem" stuff like the use and definition of the term "islamophobia").

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Have you made a thorough investigation of the pedigree of the phenomena that disgust you so much? Did you know, for example, that the laws about rapists marrying their victims in the Near East to evade punishment derive from 19th-century French law (code Napoleon), and were deeply rooted in an European tradition of abduction and forced marriage? (Rape was generally taken for granted; without it being assumed, the marriage would not have been enforceable as the woman could've requested a nullification).
a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

b) Even if they did only get this idea from copying from Christian Europe, why haven't these laws since long been amended?

Most islamic countries are independent in one form or another since decades.

c) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping

"Bride kidnapping has been practiced around the world and throughout history. It continues to occur in countries in Central Asia, the Caucasus region, and parts of Africa, and among peoples as diverse as the Hmong in Southeast Asia, the Tzeltal in Mexico, and the Romani in Europe."

You lie when you claim bride kidnapping was an European tradition; it was and to some extent is a male tradition.


d) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping#Europe

"In 326 A.D., the Emperor Constantine issued an edict prohibiting marriage by abduction. The law made kidnapping a public offence; even the kidnapped bride could be punished if she later consented to a marriage with her abductor."

And the first ever supposedly christian ruler making it illegal, does not support that it has it roots in christianity.


Realy, please take some care in formulating arguments. What you are doing is not presenting arguments, but just making a show of phoney arguments so you can paint me as stupid, uninformed or careless.

Last edited by Carn; 17th October 2017 at 04:37 AM.
Carn 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 17th October 2017, 06:06 AM   #63
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,520
Here is the problem. Whether the violence, sexism and backwardness is inherent in Koranic scripture, I do not know. That is essentially irrelevant to me. I can only view this by how Islam is practiced throughout the world. If Judaism was practiced today as was written in the Torah and most of the Old Testament it would be even more backwards and terrifying than how Islam is practiced throughout the world. But it is not.

I personally agree with Christopher Hitchens that religion poisons everything. That said, some forms are more toxic than others. If this was the 1930s, I'd say Catholicism was the most dangerous religion on the planet because of its association even partnership with NAZISM. But today the problem is Islam and the obvious requirement it becomes more benign.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla 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 17th October 2017, 06:18 AM   #64
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,170
Umpteenth time, but hokay:

The 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is recent, fair and representative of mainstream Islamic teaching, and transparently repressive. It mentions Shari'ah law ten times, and concludes its statement of rights thus:
Quote:
ARTICLE 24:
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.

ARTICLE 25:
The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.
Shari'ah law is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights:
Quote:
The Court held that the sanctions imposed on the applicants could reasonably be considered to meet a pressing social need for the protection of democratic society, since, on the pretext of giving a different meaning to the principle of secularism, the leaders of the Refah Partisi had declared their intention to establish a plurality of legal systems based on differences in religious belief, to institute Islamic law (the Sharia), a system of law that was in marked contrast to the values embodied in the Convention. They had also left in doubt their position regarding recourse to force in order to come to power and, more particularly, to retain power.

The Court considered that even if States’ margin of appreciation was narrow in the area of the dissolution of political parties, since pluralism of ideas and parties was an inherent element of democracy, the State concerned could reasonably prevent the implementation of such a political programme, which was incompatible with Convention norms, before it was given effect through specific acts that might jeopardise civil peace and the country’s democratic regime.
Note that the CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (EU-only, not same as above) has, as its closing article, this:
Quote:
Article 54 Prohibition of abuse of rights.
Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognised in this Charter or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for herein.

A positive case actually needs to be made that mainstream, institutional Islam is at all compatible with democracy. It has not been made, is in fact merely an assumption made in good faith by others, and is hard to come by in reality. Just as a Mormon cannot have many wives legally, Muslims cannot preach the supremacy of Shari'ah law without violating democratic principle and violating human rights, often protected as well under civil law.

Civil law is the only law in civil affairs, and that is all that need to be said and enforced, preferably shouted from rooftops five times a day near any church, mosque, or synagogue.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 06:27 AM   #65
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,857
When we check validity and applicabílity on any àspect, we may need to júdge that from nature and social POV. An aspect true in nature may not be rational in society and vice versa.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar 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 17th October 2017, 10:13 AM   #66
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
.

c) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping

"Bride kidnapping has been practiced around the world and throughout history. It continues to occur in countries in Central Asia, the Caucasus region, and parts of Africa, and among peoples as diverse as the Hmong in Southeast Asia, the Tzeltal in Mexico, and the Romani in Europe."

You lie when you claim bride kidnapping was an European tradition; it was and to some extent is a male tradition.
Good job googling things I mentioned! Wow!

The laws in the Arabic countries descend from European tradition. They were borrowed into Ottoman law in the 1850s. Arab countries inherited this law. The same code explicitly decriminalized homosexuality. Ponder that for a bit.

Hence, it is a European tradition in this case.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your drivel as you are clearly uninterested in understanding Muslims or Islamic society and only concerned with proving that brown people are evil. The day you are interested in learning, I suggest you make some Muslim friends, go to a mosque, and chat with an imam.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 17th October 2017 at 10:15 AM.
TubbaBlubba 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 17th October 2017, 10:48 PM   #67
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Good job googling things I mentioned! Wow!

The laws in the Arabic countries descend from European tradition. They were borrowed into Ottoman law in the 1850s. Arab countries inherited this law. The same code explicitly decriminalized homosexuality. Ponder that for a bit.

Hence, it is a European tradition in this case.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your drivel as you are clearly uninterested in understanding Muslims or Islamic society and only concerned with proving that brown people are evil. The day you are interested in learning, I suggest you make some Muslim friends, go to a mosque, and chat with an imam.
You know what a constant in such debates is?

Islamapologetes providing nearly zero evidence for their claims.

They just say, something is that way, blabla (you for example regarding the influence of European law on Ottoman law in 19th century; evidence? no, you just claim it is that way).

And for example, you claim that i want to prove that brown people are evil. What evidence or at least something pointing somehow in that direction you provide?

Zero. None. And you simply do not care.

Just for you:
I give a damn about the skin colour of the Quran, cause it can have any "skin" colour, as it is a book and its cover can be white, brown, yellow, pink, black or any sort or combination of any color perceivable by human eyes.

Last edited by Carn; 17th October 2017 at 11:10 PM.
Carn 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 17th October 2017, 10:56 PM   #68
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Whether the violence, sexism and backwardness is inherent in Koranic scripture, I do not know. That is essentially irrelevant to me.
Whether it is irrelevant or not, does not change that one could read the Quran and then form an opinion upon whether it is the case.

And what Islamapologetes do is to claim that anyone, who has read Quran and relevant Hadiths is Islamophob and driven by racism if he/she thinks that "violence, sexism and backwardness is inherent in Koranic scripture".

Its like someone reads a book and then says:
"Uh, this book is so full of violence, sexism and backwardness."

and someone else replies:
"Since you made this statement, you are a racist."

and any questions like:
"Wait, why do you say that? I made a statement about that book; i did not say anything about any humans at all much less imply that there are superior and inferior races; why do you call me racist?"

is not answered and instead something like this is said:

"You are not open to the evidence i did not provide, stop being a racist."

It is just totally ridiculous.

@Hlafordlaes

As you do this for the "umpteenth time", did you ever see anyone arguing for the opposite care about evidence and providing evidence or something similar?

Last edited by Carn; 17th October 2017 at 11:13 PM.
Carn 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 17th October 2017, 11:50 PM   #69
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,924
Abstract discussions lead nowhere. Islam is not worse than Christianity —nor vice versa— in an absolute sense but in some particular circumstances. The action of a neo-nazi group against a mosque cannot be seen as a problem of religious liberty in abstract —as it seems to be the case of some Dawkins’ particular statements. It happens that German neo-nazis are the spearhead of a right-wind racist movement that is growing in Europe last times; it happens that the offended mosque was in Europe; and it happens that in Western countries we have not words that establish a clear separation between inhabitants of some countries and believers in a particular religion. Islam, Muslim and other words mean both things indifferently and are applied to everybody that comes to Morocco, Syria or Palestine.

Therefore, some precisions are needed:
The neo-nazi attack is sheer racism as other similar expressions of “islamofobia” frequently are. This not happens with almost all attacks against Christianity in Europe.
The big majority of “Muslims” in Europe are moderate and don’t support the Islamic terrorism. When a neo-nazi group attacks a mosque his aim is to segregate or even to expel a racial minority.

Therefore, when we atheists assess an attack against “Islam” we have to clarify our position, that is to say, we have to clarify that we criticize the Islam as any other religion, but we strictly condemn the “islamophobia” as a confuse kind of racism. This is not the case with Christianity where this confusion is not possible and this is the cause that some Christians don’t see clearly the atheist views on “Islam”. It is boring, but we ought to explain it to them continuously.
David Mo 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 18th October 2017, 02:04 AM   #70
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Therefore, when we atheists assess an attack against “Islam” we have to clarify our position, that is to say, we have to clarify that we criticize the Islam as any other religion, but we strictly condemn the “islamophobia” as a confuse kind of racism. This is not the case with Christianity where this confusion is not possible and this is the cause that some Christians don’t see clearly the atheist views on “Islam”. It is boring, but we ought to explain it to them continuously.
I essentially agree, but I also think it's a bit pointless to "criticize Islam" or "Christianity" in general. A critical examination of source texts, sure, but any criticism directed at Islamic practice and society must be carefully done in a socio-political and historical context. For example, no sensible person should reach the conclusion that the main cause of suicide bombing is some wording in the Qur'an - its popularity is generally to be attributed to its use in the Iran-Iraq war. Likewise the application of various ultrareactionary policies like in Saudi Arabia must also be viewed with an understanding of the history of these movements and their relationship to "ordinary" Muslims, fundamentalism as a reaction to imperialism, etc.

Anything less is useless demagoguery.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 18th October 2017, 02:09 AM   #71
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
(you for example regarding the influence of European law on Ottoman law in 19th century; evidence? no, you just claim it is that way).
That the 1858 Ottoman code was primarily based on Civil Law, particularly the Code Napoleon, should be common knowledge to anyone who presumes to engage in the sort of sweeping tirades you do. If you don't have the most cursory knowledge of the history of the Ottoman empire, you are too ignorant to be worth discussing with, and you have clearly demonstrated an utter unwillingness to learn.

The fact that you in spite of such ignorance are ready to spew vitriol over Muslim society is clear evidence that you are in fact fuelled by bigotry.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 18th October 2017, 02:29 AM   #72
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,838
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Whether it is irrelevant or not, does not change that one could read the Quran and then form an opinion upon whether it is the case.

And what Islamapologetes do is to claim that anyone, who has read Quran and relevant Hadiths is Islamophob and driven by racism if he/she thinks that "violence, sexism and backwardness is inherent in Koranic scripture".

Its like someone reads a book and then says:
"Uh, this book is so full of violence, sexism and backwardness."

and someone else replies:
"Since you made this statement, you are a racist."


...snip...
Who has actually done that in this thread?
__________________
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 18th October 2017, 02:34 AM   #73
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Therefore, some precisions are needed:
The neo-nazi attack is sheer racism as other similar expressions of “islamofobia” frequently are. This not happens with almost all attacks against Christianity in Europe.
The big majority of “Muslims” in Europe are moderate and don’t support the Islamic terrorism. When a neo-nazi group attacks a mosque his aim is to segregate or even to expel a racial minority.

Therefore, when we atheists assess an attack against “Islam” we have to clarify our position, that is to say, we have to clarify that we criticize the Islam as any other religion, but we strictly condemn the “islamophobia” as a confuse kind of racism. This is not the case with Christianity where this confusion is not possible and this is the cause that some Christians don’t see clearly the atheist views on “Islam”. It is boring, but we ought to explain it to them continuously.
You have to try to explain it continously because you continously fail to see your own errors, some of them being:

a) No remotely prescise definition of "islamophobia"
b) Not using the definitions you have; meaning that often people are called islamophobe although not meeting the criteria and instead of someone arguing "Wait, he/she is not islamophobic cause criteria ... is not met" nobody gives a damn
c) No caring whether the evidence leaves only the option islamophobia or still other non-unreasonable options

To make you understand, here is a definition of islamophobia offered by some site called oxford living dictionary:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/de...n/islamophobia
"Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force."

This criteria is fulfilled in case of "Dislike of ... Islam" due the two "or".

Since you as an atheist dislike all religions you also dislike Islam; while you might not especially dislike Islam, the definition does not require this and hence - according to that definition - you are
ISLAMOPHOBIC.

In a rational discussions you would simply nod to this analysis, search for/formulate a definition of Islamophobia, test again whether that definition would make you an islamophobe and reject it in such case repeating this process until you had a reasonable definition. And then you would check what i wrote, to estimate, whether i meet the criteria. And only then you would suggest, that anyone is islamophob, cause you value precision.

But my bet is, that you do not give a damn.

Cause it is absolutely widely known that there is no definition of that term you use in a supposedly "precise" approach, visible by wikipedia entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamo...nd_definitions

containing no definition whatsoever which isn't either as imprecise as the above or isn't accepted widely.

Sorry, there is nothing precise about your argument, hence you are damned to repeat it forever.
Carn 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 18th October 2017, 02:44 AM   #74
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Who has actually done that in this thread?
My post 57 was an argument about the wording of quran and its relevance; TubbaBlubba replied to that suggesting my argument was based on cultural essentialism, i replied, and he/she said i was supposedly "concerned with proving that brown people are evil".

Hence, it followed the pattern of quickly going from offering disgust at some content of quran to being called a racist.
Carn 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 18th October 2017, 02:50 AM   #75
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
That the 1858 Ottoman code was primarily based on Civil Law, particularly the Code Napoleon, should be common knowledge to anyone who presumes to engage in the sort of sweeping tirades you do. If you don't have the most cursory knowledge of the history of the Ottoman empire, you are too ignorant to be worth discussing with, and you have clearly demonstrated an utter unwillingness to learn.
You know that in discussions one provides evidence even if one presumes the other side knows about it?

All links i offered are in my opinion about knowledge to expected in such discussions; but i still offer them just in case.
Carn 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 18th October 2017, 03:13 AM   #76
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
You know that in discussions one provides evidence even if one presumes the other side knows about it?

All links i offered are in my opinion about knowledge to expected in such discussions; but i still offer them just in case.
And once you stop going on offensive, bigoted tirades and start showing an interest in learning, I will be happy to provide sources.

Actually, I'll give one to you right away: Osman's Dream by Caroline Finkel. Read that and get back to me.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 18th October 2017, 03:16 AM   #77
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
You have to try to explain it continously because you continously fail to see your own errors, some of them being:

a) No remotely prescise definition of "islamophobia"
b) Not using the definitions you have; meaning that often people are called islamophobe although not meeting the criteria and instead of someone arguing "Wait, he/she is not islamophobic cause criteria ... is not met" nobody gives a damn
c) No caring whether the evidence leaves only the option islamophobia or still other non-unreasonable options

To make you understand, here is a definition of islamophobia offered by some site called oxford living dictionary:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/de...n/islamophobia
"Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force."

This criteria is fulfilled in case of "Dislike of ... Islam" due the two "or".

Since you as an atheist dislike all religions you also dislike Islam; while you might not especially dislike Islam, the definition does not require this and hence - according to that definition - you are
ISLAMOPHOBIC.

In a rational discussions you would simply nod to this analysis, search for/formulate a definition of Islamophobia, test again whether that definition would make you an islamophobe and reject it in such case repeating this process until you had a reasonable definition. And then you would check what i wrote, to estimate, whether i meet the criteria. And only then you would suggest, that anyone is islamophob, cause you value precision.

But my bet is, that you do not give a damn.

Cause it is absolutely widely known that there is no definition of that term you use in a supposedly "precise" approach, visible by wikipedia entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamo...nd_definitions

containing no definition whatsoever which isn't either as imprecise as the above or isn't accepted widely.

Sorry, there is nothing precise about your argument, hence you are damned to repeat it forever.
Stuff like this is why I stopped caring for the skeptic community. The idea that this banal sophistry constitutes intellectual, academic discourse is pure poison.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 18th October 2017, 03:43 AM   #78
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,838
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
My post 57 was an argument about the wording of quran and its relevance; TubbaBlubba replied to that suggesting my argument was based on cultural essentialism, i replied, and he/she said i was supposedly "concerned with proving that brown people are evil".

Hence, it followed the pattern of quickly going from offering disgust at some content of quran to being called a racist.
Aren't our perceptions funny? You see from reading those words I did not gain the understanding that you have but took a rather different understanding.
__________________
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 18th October 2017, 06:25 AM   #79
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Aren't our perceptions funny? You see from reading those words I did not gain the understanding that you have but took a rather different understanding.
You did not gain from reading the words "concerned with proving that brown people are evil" that i am accused of racism?

Or you mean that the suggested pattern of quickly getting from critique of quran to beind called a racist was not there?
Carn 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 18th October 2017, 06:42 AM   #80
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Stuff like this is why I stopped caring for the skeptic community. The idea that this banal sophistry constitutes intellectual, academic discourse is pure poison.
The point is that you are unable to any intellectual discourse if you cannot admit at once that before calling anyone "islamophob" one needs some useable definition of the word. So its you causing the lack of standards.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
And once you stop going on offensive, bigoted tirades and start showing an interest in learning, I will be happy to provide sources.
The problem starts with you thinking i offered something qualifying as "offensive, bigoted tirades" in this thread.

That makes you think i need to get rid of some prejudice regarding Muslims or middle east.

Which leads to suggesting getting information about

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Actually, I'll give one to you right away: Osman's Dream by Caroline Finkel. Read that and get back to me.
the history of Osmans from 13th to 20th century, supposedly making me understand people in the middle east weren't backward barbarians.

Which completely misses my basic position, that revelation of Islam written down in 7th to 9th century comprises some problematic things, which effect today world in numerous problematic ways.

You understand that whatever happened between 13th and 20th century cannot prove that something written in 7th to 9th century doesn't contain something problematic?

And that however islamic texts of 7th to 9th centuries were applied/interpreted betwenn 13th and 20th century cannot prove that today events are not effected by islamic texts today?
Carn 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 06:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.