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 2nd November 2017, 03:50 AM   #201
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,292
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Well, that settles it: you are just making things up to support your preconceived, bigoted prejudices, with little to no honest concern for the truth.
You are making here things up.

In your own words:
"You have a _hypothesis_ at best."

So what i have to demonstrate depends upon what MY hypothesis is and not upon what you think my hypothesis is.

My hypothesis - to formulate it again - is

that a for political issues relevant number of adherents of religions act upon the principles set down by their religions founder or act to emulate them and that therefore the content of the hundreds of years of text can have political effects today

AND

that texts of Islam have due to their content more negative effects in the aforementioned way than some other religions.

Even if the entire last 1400 years not a single government in Islamic countries and/or not a single society acted in the above mentioned way, this would not render the hypothesis wrong, due to the hypothesis only requiring a relevant number of adherents and not governments or majorities to act such way.

Hence, requiring "to show that Islamic society has actually worked the way you assume with some degree of consistency throughout history" is based on a misunderstanding of the hypothesis.

You understand that the relevant issue for my hypothesis would be what i say they are and not what you say they are?
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 2nd November 2017, 04:14 AM   #202
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,615
Sorry, I made the assumption that your hypothesis was not utterly trivial. If some of these supposed negative effects only manifest in a brief window in a 1400-year history, it clearly makes no sense to put significant blame on Islam. But I suppose you can claim a technical, even if completely hollow, victory as long as someone somewhere does something bad and cites the Qur'an.

I mean, it's a great approach to take since it makes it very obvious that bigotry and prejudice, not actual concern for truth, fuels you.
__________________
"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 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 2nd November 2017, 04:23 AM   #203
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,280
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Well, that settles it: you are just making things up to support your preconceived, bigoted prejudices, with little to no honest concern for the truth.
Bigoted? Who's making stuff up now?
__________________
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 2nd November 2017, 04:24 AM   #204
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,921
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
I do not consider the words to be synonymous. I asked whether you consider them synonyms.
Oxford dictationary links does not consider them synonyms, as it defines Muslim as:
"A follower of the religion of Islam."
If Islam and Muslim would be synonym, that would be a recursive definition. So the site will only offer that definition, if Islam and Muslim are not synonyms in their opinion.

I recommend you realizing that other people being unable to use language correctly and call for example inhabitants of Irak Muslims instead of Irakis is entirely not my fault. And similar that when i say Muslim i mean Muslim as "follower of Islam" and hence do not imply any nationality or ethnic or "race" and half the world is too stupid to understand that i do not talk about people from some specific country or even from some larger region it is not my fault, although it is my problem.
As you see above, the dictionary you linked treats Muslims and Islam not as synonyms.
Hence, it is at least semantically possible to be Anti-Islam without being Anti-Muslim.

Based on you also presuming i am racist, it seems more like a book "How to constantly misunderstand anything anyone says about Islam, so i can call him racist".
Maybe i should realy read it; such books are often quite some fun to follow the idiotic contortions some people do when setting up strawmans to burn them down.
Actually, it would be yours to show that i did not make such a difference.

But look at post 176. In it i went harshly against Islam and only offered a conclusion for Muslims to draw from my harsh criticism. Hence, i treated Islam and Muslims as being different from each other.
First of all and very important: I don’t consider you a racist. Neither I am. I used “we” in a rhetoric mode. I meant the standard Western mentality that is permeated with racist words and concepts. Sometimes people use them without be aware of it. And these are people that read what you say from their own language. These are those ordinary people that interest me when I am speaking of the pertinence of some public utterances. The People, if you want.

You have read only one definition. Here the two definitions:
Muslim: "A follower of the religion of Islam."
Islam: “The religion of the Muslims”.
How is possible to attack Islam without attack the Muslims that are the believers in Islam? I continue without understand what difference you establish between “Islam” and “Muslim”. Some Muslims could not have Islam as religion? Do you call “Muslim” also the Syrian Christians? Are there some people that don’t believe in Muhammad and are “Muslim”? Please, clarify these concepts.

If you consider Said an idiotic a priori it would be better if you don’t read Orientalism. It is useless to read anything with this strong antagonism.
I will return on your 176 comment later. Not time now.
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 2nd November 2017, 01:27 PM   #205
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,292
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Sorry, I made the assumption that your hypothesis was not utterly trivial.
Sorry to tell you, but nobody i ever discussed this with considered the idea, that some content of hundreds of years old text can have political effect today and that the texts of Islam have more negative effect than other texts in this way due to their content, to be utterly trivial.

Reason is that many so called/real Islamophobes actually claim little else except that such negative effect from content is strong or very strong.

If everybody accepted my assumption as trivial, the only difference between such Islamophobes and all the rest would be the estimation of the magnitude.

And that does not fit the discussions i see; but maybe i am wrong.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
If some of these supposed negative effects only manifest in a brief window in a 1400-year history, it clearly makes no sense to put significant blame on Islam.
As forumlated in my presvious post, i do not think i specified if it happens rarely or often.

It at least should be considered to estimate to what the "magnitutude" is.

Cause how to political handle opposing forces guided in their actions to a relevant extent by hundreds of years old texts is different from groups not caring for such texts; and to determine which it is, the "magnitude" is relevant.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I mean, it's a great approach to take since it makes it very obvious that bigotry and prejudice, not actual concern for truth, fuels you.
Frankly, i do not see how it would be bigotry to consider to what extent some hundreds of years old texts have political relevant effects 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
Old 2nd November 2017, 01:51 PM   #206
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,292
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
How is possible to attack Islam without attack the Muslims that are the believers in Islam?
The same way it can be done with Christianity.

E.g. take the film Life of Brian.

Is it an attack upon today (or 1970ties) human beings being adherents to Christianity?
I would say no.

Can it be considered an attack on - among other things - Christianity? Yes (well, a lot of Christians thought that and even some crew members thought that; though not all).

As a more clear example, if someone suggests, that Jesus was conceived the natural way and his mother made up the story about an Angle and so on, this is no attack on Christian individuals. But it is an attack upon Christianity the faith by effectively claiming it is based on a lie.

And similar, if one claims that Muhammed was just a con man making up religious "revelations" from Allah while going along to further his own desire or maybe out of some mental disorder, one does in no way attack individual muslims. But one attacks the Islamic faith; again by claiming it is based on a lie.

Similar it would be, if one claimed some of what Jesus or Muhammed taught to be plain immoral. Again it is not against any individual muslims or even groups of muslims; it is simply an attack on the faith itself (which has at its core that most/all of teachings of the respective founder to be moral).

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I continue without understand what difference you establish between “Islam” and “Muslim”.
The former is the body of thought represented by Islamic scipture and important schools of thought.

The latter are human beings.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Some Muslims could not have Islam as religion?
No, all Muslims have Islam as religion.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Do you call “Muslim” also the Syrian Christians?
No.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Are there some people that don’t believe in Muhammad and are “Muslim”?
"believe" in Muhammed lacks a bit clarity, but i would not think anyone not considering Muhammed to be Allah's messenger would not be a Muslim.
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 2nd November 2017, 02:24 PM   #207
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,162
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
What's over? You made some incredibly broad claims which you failed to back up with examples across history, or dedicated studies of these particular phenomena.
No more dancing.

People disagree as the what truth consists of, as well as to what behaviors are enabled by knowing or possessing the truth. The challenge is to develop a framework that addresses the relationships involved so as to address terrorism in all its forms, using exactly the same framework, no fudging. Only in this way can we begin to consider the approach fair or equitable. Therefore, prior to proceeding with criticism of any particular creed, one must develop an approach and then see if it can differentiate between cases when violence is more or less likely, without discriminating on the basis of the specifics of only one creed to create the criteria for analysis. This does not impede finding, once the criteria are laid out, that any given creed is more or less likely to inspire a given pattern or behavior.

The framework I am using nowadays I am also using in another thread discussing Christian fascism, and even free market dogmatism. None of the criteria need be changed, and I curse all houses of dogma with the same plague. Fairly.

No, I will not restate the framework; rather, we shall rebuild one here and now. The general goal to identify those ideologies that have been or are violent, and pinpoint why using the same method and criteria for all. The purpose is to gain useful insight into ideologically-inspired terrorist behavior in a fair manner using an unbiased framework, and then and only then discuss what specific areas in any given ideology, such as Islam, may give it a tendency to promote or inhibit behaviors, always using that same framework. (Any criticisms made of Islam so far, then, actually come at the tail end of the above process, which is why it is now necessary to walk through it.)

The starting challenge for you: In the most general terms possible, discuss when truth is violent, and why?

(If examples are used, they should be from both political and religious domains, and citing several cases, so as to illustrate, but not from a sole instance. Nota Bene: My current workload is high and shall remain so for the next few weeks. There may be delays in response. Reason I mention is, there is a veritable ******** of work coming up here, too.)

***
ETA: As to the sweeping generalizations: Buy the book I cited. I believe "mayhem" is not an exaggeration, and is not synonymous with hot war of expansion. Straight from the horse's mouth, no need to take it from me.
__________________
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.

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 2nd November 2017 at 02:38 PM.
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 2nd November 2017, 04:15 PM   #208
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,615
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
The challenge is to develop a framework that addresses the relationships involved so as to address terrorism in all its forms, using exactly the same framework, no fudging.
That's a first-class ticket to a misleading metanarrative. Ideally, one studies different aspects of a phenomenon using different frameworks to capture the totality of the phenomenon.

But all that is secondary to a sensible grounding in primary (or as laymen, we usually have to be happy with secondary) sources. To what degree one can study a religion as an ideology, the study of how the tenets of that ideology results in certain tendencies in society is a monumental undertaking. A great deal of controversy persists to this day about the effect and nature of some of the most thoroughly researched ideologies, including ones that are far, far less complex and developed than a world religion.

It is overwhelmingly clear that the most important cause of the "violence" you talk about is fairly recent political events and conflicts concerning, essentially, material issues and somewhat generic exercises of power (such as imperialism). I would go as far as to say that these causes are almost completely succesful in explaining the violence. Only once we have identified areas that cannot be easily reconciled with such far more mundane causes does it become interesting and useful to ask questions concerning less concrete influences, such as culture and religion.

That is, unless there is some absolutely overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Studying "radical/political Islam" as a religious phenomenon first and foremost is, in my view, grossly misleading. No one could possibly doubt that religion affects how people think and act, but those effects can only be understood by first carefully studying the more immediate causes of the conflicts. You simply cannot take some generalizing first-principles approach based on your understanding of Islam and directly apply that (or, you can, but it's a terrible approach). Before you even think to study how Islam at large fits into a historical or current event, the event must be carefully contextualized and immediate, major factors must be controlled for.

The type of thinking you propose is how someone like Gibbon ended up with the ludicrous conclusion that Christianity caused the "fall of the Western Roman Empire", or how western academics long contorted themselves into believing the Ottoman Empire somehow managed to "decline" for 300 years straght. It's putting the cart before the horse.
__________________
"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 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 2nd November 2017, 10:13 PM   #209
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,292
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
No one could possibly doubt that religion affects how people think and act, but those effects can only be understood by first carefully studying the more immediate causes of the conflicts.
Your claim that no one could possible doubt that religion affects how people think and act would be a lot more plausible if not roughly 24-48 hours after nearly each islamistic terror attack someone publically declared that that attack had nothing to do with Islam (or a variation thereof).

Because somebody aware of the possibility that religion affects how people think and act, would consider it possible at first that the terrorist's actions were affected by religion and therefore by Islam and would exclude the possibility only AFTER the evidence allows to discard the possibility.

But 24-48 hours after an attack there is usually insufficient evidence to discard any possibility.

So some people nonetheless proclaiming some act had nothing to do with Islam, seem to operate from the assumption that religion DOES NOT affect how people think and act who carry our terror attacks in a relevant way.

Do you have any other explanation for people declaring before the evidence is avaible that some attack had nothing to do with Islam?

(And i am aware that some other people do the opposite.)
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 3rd November 2017, 01:21 AM   #210
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,921
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
T
The former [Islam]is the body of thought represented by Islamic scipture and important schools of thought.
The latter [Muslim]are human beings.
Muslims are human beings that believe in Islam. Don’t forgot the essential part of the definition.

If some people think that a belief is an essential part of their personality, if you attack their belief then you are attacking both the belief and the believer. The distinction between the man and his essential beliefs is purely formal. If you attack Islam you attack the Muslims. What matters is that the attack be true and respects human dignity. You cannot say that somebody’s belief is stupid without call him stupid. You cannot claim that they believe in a terrorist religion without call them terrorists.

I doubt that what you wrote has been respectful with Muslims:
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Mohammed was a pedophilic 7th century war lord; as 7th century (and 6th and 8th and nearly any other centuries) war lords are on any decent ethical scale nearly at the bottom, only a being of supreme evilness would proclaim a 7th century warlord and on top of that a pedophilic one as an excellent pattern for conduct to emulate.
Muhammad was not a “pedophilic” in the modern sense of this word. In Middle Ages the marriage with and between children was a norm among kings, nobles and families. Christian or Muslim. Neither he was a war lord in the same sense that condottieri were. He was an armed prophet in the same way that Aaron, Joshua and other Jewish prophets and kings that are very respected in Western countries.

Imagine that I say:
“Jesus was a hysterical bastard that spent his life with the ridiculous expectation that his actual Father was going to send him a cohort of angels in order to massacre and torture his enemies”.
True or false, this doesn’t seem a good way to begin a debate with Christians.

Child marriage is a plague in some modern Islamic countries. No more that in other countries as India or Ethiopia that are not Muslim people and don’t believe in Muhammad. The causes are other. This kind of marriage is minority and illegal in almost all of these countries and it is fought by relevant personalities. For example, Saudi Princess 'Adelah, daughter of King 'Abdallah and many lawmen that have made and defend the laws against child marriage, like 'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Lahim. Many of them consider themselves Muslim people and this is a clear example of the diversity of interpretations inside the Islam even in an ultra-Islamic country. This is an example how the Koran is not literally applied in almost all Muslim countries. It would be impossible. And if some diverse interpretations are possible we have to think how we can support the most liberal of them. Not to attack indiscriminately everybody.

I am afraid that the anti-Islam crusaders that not are able of distinguish between diverse streams inside Islam foster the increasing feeling of identity ultra-Islamist. This would be worse for everybody. Specially for Muslim little girls.
And I am afraid that their understandable hate to the regressive Islam associates them with bad companions without be aware of the implications of what they are doing. I repeat; walls and ghettos. The worst.
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 3rd November 2017, 02:41 AM   #211
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,615
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Your claim that no one could possible doubt that religion affects how people think and act would be a lot more plausible if not roughly 24-48 hours after nearly each islamistic terror attack someone publically declared that that attack had nothing to do with Islam (or a variation thereof).

Because somebody aware of the possibility that religion affects how people think and act, would consider it possible at first that the terrorist's actions were affected by religion and therefore by Islam and would exclude the possibility only AFTER the evidence allows to discard the possibility.

But 24-48 hours after an attack there is usually insufficient evidence to discard any possibility.

So some people nonetheless proclaiming some act had nothing to do with Islam, seem to operate from the assumption that religion DOES NOT affect how people think and act who carry our terror attacks in a relevant way.

Do you have any other explanation for people declaring before the evidence is avaible that some attack had nothing to do with Islam?

(And i am aware that some other people do the opposite.)
That could either be an expression of that person's convictions or conclusions regarding traditional teachings in Islam and unnecessary killing. Or it could be a correct conclusion regarding the main causes of both radicalization and the emergence of terror groups. Islam is not really relevant in the public discourse regarding the causes of terror attacks, it's a red herring.
__________________
"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 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 3rd November 2017, 04:25 AM   #212
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,280
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Muslims are human beings that believe in Islam. Don’t forgot the essential part of the definition.

If some people think that a belief is an essential part of their personality, if you attack their belief then you are attacking both the belief and the believer. The distinction between the man and his essential beliefs is purely formal.
Yeah but at this point it's a matter of semantics. Someone can make a case that the two are different, another that the differences are irrelevant. But the point is that it is possible to attack the religion without attacking the believers. Satirists have been doing that for millennia. People laugh at the stuff they love all the time.
__________________
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 3rd November 2017, 05:19 AM   #213
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,292
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Muslims are human beings that believe in Islam. Don’t forgot the essential part of the definition.
You asked about the difference; Muslims are human beings, Islam is a body of thought. That i is the main and most important difference.
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
If some people think that a belief is an essential part of their personality, if you attack their belief then you are attacking both the belief and the believer.
That would mean that exclusive criticism of a specific religion is never possible, as any criticism of a specific religion would always also be an attack on the believers of that religion.


In that case i think there should also be some apologies from atheists for a lot of criticism of Christianity during the last several hundred years.

E.g. Life of Brian i mentioned would then require an apology as it was at least perceived by Christians aas an attack upon their beliefs, which according to what you say was an attack on them and therefore an apology is due.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The distinction between the man and his essential beliefs is purely formal. If you attack Islam you attack the Muslims. What matters is that the attack be true and respects human dignity. You cannot say that somebody’s belief is stupid without call him stupid. You cannot claim that they believe in a terrorist religion without call them terrorists.
As said above, then all exclusive criticism of Islam is impossible.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I doubt that what you wrote has been respectful with Muslims:
...
Imagine that I say:
“Jesus was a hysterical bastard that spent his life with the ridiculous expectation that his actual Father was going to send him a cohort of angels in order to massacre and torture his enemies”.
True or false, this doesn’t seem a good way to begin a debate with Christians.
The issue is not whether the criticism is correct or false, but whether and how one would be allowed to bring it into public.

Presume for a moment someone honestly arrives at the conclusion Mohammed was a pedophile or Jesus was a hysterical bastard that ... (pick whichever you like more).

How could one voice that opinion/criticism, that Quran cannot be verbatim from Allah as Mohammed being a pediphilic war lord would never be elevated as an example/Jesus was a hysterical bastard that spent his life with the ridiculous expectation that his actual Father was going to send him a cohort of angels in order to massacre and torture his enemies?


According to what you say it seems someone having such an opinion, is ethically required to not voice it.




Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
And if some diverse interpretations are possible we have to think how we can support the most liberal of them.
Before deciding which "liberal" or for political purposes preferable interpretations one should support and how to support them, one would first need to understand the "non-liberal" interpretations and their effects for being able to identify "liberal" interpretations and helping them counter the "non-liberal".

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."

But if one operates in a "islamistic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam" and personally believes this, one is guranteed to fail at knowing the enemy.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I am afraid that the anti-Islam crusaders that not are able of distinguish between diverse streams inside Islam foster the increasing feeling of identity ultra-Islamist. This would be worse for everybody. Specially for Muslim little girls.
And I am afraid that their understandable hate to the regressive Islam associates them with bad companions without be aware of the implications of what they are doing. I repeat; walls and ghettos. The worst.

Yes, such danger exists.

But i do not think it can be countered by acting as if Islam has absolutely nothing to with terrorism. Cause that approach will register with many people as absolutely nuts and then they are more likely to listen to the more extreme "crusaders".
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 3rd November 2017, 05:29 AM   #214
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,292
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
That could either be an expression of that person's convictions or conclusions regarding traditional teachings in Islam and unnecessary killing. Or it could be a correct conclusion regarding the main causes of both radicalization and the emergence of terror groups.

And George W. Bush managed a throughful study of traditional teachings in Islam in something like 72 hours?

And nearly all politicians since then managed to do this in 48 hours or less?

We are blessed with realy intelligent and super fast reading leaders also capable of arabic.
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 3rd November 2017, 05:32 AM   #215
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,825
When you criticise any belief you are implicitly criticising those who have chosen to believe it. When you say that you think the belief that the earth is flat is silly you are also effectively saying that flat earthers are silly.

Beliefs are chosen; even someone who is born and raised in a religion has plenty of opportunities to repudiate it and choose another, or none. So yes, if you think they have chosen wrongly then you are criticising their reasoning ability at the very least.

I don't really see what can be done about that. It's surely not a reason to stop criticising beliefs. There are doubtless ways of doing so that piss the believers off more than others, but I can't see any way of doing so without pissing them off a bit.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Pixel42; 3rd November 2017 at 05:34 AM.
Pixel42 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 3rd November 2017, 06:05 AM   #216
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,292
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
So yes, if you think they have chosen wrongly then you are criticising their reasoning ability at the very least.
But having made the wrong choice/being stupid is usually the only thing falling upon the believer.

E.g. in my criticism post 176 i called Muhammed a pedophile and war lord and concluded based on that that the sura praising him as an example to emulate is not verbatim from the supreme good being; hence, not the entire quran is verbatim from the supreme being.

That is pretty harsh against Muhammed and against whoever was the author of Quran; but against the today believer this is nothing more than a "You have been duped; Ouran cannot be from Allah, look at what a monster the according to Quran supreme example of conduct man named Mohammed must have been; Allah would never say such a thing about such a monster."

So the attack against Islam is not directly transferred to the believer.
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 3rd November 2017, 06:12 AM   #217
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,615
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
And George W. Bush managed a throughful study of traditional teachings in Islam in something like 72 hours?

And nearly all politicians since then managed to do this in 48 hours or less?

We are blessed with realy intelligent and super fast reading leaders also capable of arabic.
None of that is necessary to conclude that the main causes of the attacks are sociopolitical, or to make relatively vacuous PR statemets about Islam. While the latter may or may not be counterproductive it is certainly defensible with regard to the problem of religious 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 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 3rd November 2017, 07:06 AM   #218
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,292
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
None of that is necessary to conclude that the main causes of the attacks are sociopolitical, or to make relatively vacuous PR statemets about Islam. While the latter may or may not be counterproductive it is certainly defensible with regard to the problem of religious bigotry.
And what would you make of the following line of reasoning within a police force:

1. We certainly do not doubt that religion affects how people think and act.

2. In the community we are required to protect about 3000 people have been murdered by suspects claiming themselves to be motivated by religion X, so claiming that the effect of their religion upon themselves was that of incitement to murder or at least encouragement to act so. Furthermore numerous suspects stopped in the process of planing murder also claimed similar things.

Due to 1. it cannot be excluded that the suspects are telling the truth in 2. and that the contents of the religious teachings was a factor in their crime.

Therefore, as a police force sworn to protect the live of the people in our community, we must at least have an eye upon what religious teachings are promoted in religious centers of religion X; this could both help preventing and solving some of those murders with suspects claiming to be motivated towards their crime by some religious teachings of religion X.


The police force never considers to monitor religious centers of religion Y the same way, as no suspects or crimes were ever reported with either admission as in 2. or evidence pointing to something like in 2.


Barring the details that such a surveillance activity might be very carefully managed to avoid violation of laws, do you think that in that basic reasoning there is anything fundamentally problematic?

Or is it just plain and dutiful assesment of the motivating factors of crimes and developing respective preventive activity by a police force?

edit:
And to stress it: Nobody in the police force thinks religion is the only factor; they just think it might be a factor relevant enough to keep an eye on it, as numerous suspects claim 2.

Last edited by Carn; 3rd November 2017 at 07:09 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 3rd November 2017, 07:37 AM   #219
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,824
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
And what would you make of the following line of reasoning within a police force:

1. We certainly do not doubt that religion affects how people think and act.

2. In the community we are required to protect about 3000 people have been murdered by suspects claiming themselves to be motivated by religion X, so claiming that the effect of their religion upon themselves was that of incitement to murder or at least encouragement to act so. Furthermore numerous suspects stopped in the process of planing murder also claimed similar things.

Due to 1. it cannot be excluded that the suspects are telling the truth in 2. and that the contents of the religious teachings was a factor in their crime.

Therefore, as a police force sworn to protect the live of the people in our community, we must at least have an eye upon what religious teachings are promoted in religious centers of religion X; this could both help preventing and solving some of those murders with suspects claiming to be motivated towards their crime by some religious teachings of religion X.


The police force never considers to monitor religious centers of religion Y the same way, as no suspects or crimes were ever reported with either admission as in 2. or evidence pointing to something like in 2.


Barring the details that such a surveillance activity might be very carefully managed to avoid violation of laws, do you think that in that basic reasoning there is anything fundamentally problematic?

Or is it just plain and dutiful assesment of the motivating factors of crimes and developing respective preventive activity by a police force?

edit:
And to stress it: Nobody in the police force thinks religion is the only factor; they just think it might be a factor relevant enough to keep an eye on it, as numerous suspects claim 2.
Would seem a bit strange if those murderers didn't come from the same community.
__________________
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 3rd November 2017, 07:56 AM   #220
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,292
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Would seem a bit strange if those murderers didn't come from the same community.
Why?

The issue is some potentially "inciting" (at least according to said murder suspects) religious teachings of religion X; if those religious teachings are a risc factor for murder why should the police not check whether these religious teachings also exist in the local religious centers of religion X?

Maybe the result of that will be a something like: "All is fine, in our local religion X centers, these teachings are irrelevant."

But not checking whether some teachings are circulated which are known to be something that motivates murderes, would be strange in my opinion.

And if presuming, that your argument is valid, would a single such murderer or would be murderer then be sufficient justification for such a program, even if the majority of such murderers with somewhat religious motivations are from the outside?

I ask, cause it just happens that the vehicle using murderer of this week in New York, went to some local religious center and also seems to make statements as under 2. in my previous post:
http://www.northjersey.com/story/new...ort/819826001/

Last edited by Carn; 3rd November 2017 at 07:57 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 3rd November 2017, 08:10 AM   #221
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,162
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
That's a first-class ticket to a misleading metanarrative. Ideally, one studies different aspects of a phenomenon using different frameworks to capture the totality of the phenomenon.
Well, try one at least.

Quote:
But all that is secondary to a sensible grounding in primary (or as laymen, we usually have to be happy with secondary) sources. To what degree one can study a religion as an ideology, the study of how the tenets of that ideology results in certain tendencies in society is a monumental undertaking. A great deal of controversy persists to this day about the effect and nature of some of the most thoroughly researched ideologies, including ones that are far, far less complex and developed than a world religion.
True, ideologies can be complex. They do, however, have things like core tenets and public statements.

Quote:
It is overwhelmingly clear that the most important cause of the "violence" you talk about is fairly recent political events and conflicts concerning, essentially, material issues and somewhat generic exercises of power (such as imperialism). I would go as far as to say that these causes are almost completely succesful in explaining the violence. Only once we have identified areas that cannot be easily reconciled with such far more mundane causes does it become interesting and useful to ask questions concerning less concrete influences, such as culture and religion.
Here is your first problem. This is non-analytical, as it cannot be used to differentiate the Boy Scout creed from Nazi propaganda or what relation either might have to behavior. Why do Muslim Palestianians commit suicide bomb attacks, but atheists or other non-Muslims do not? Same conditions, radically different results. By this line of loose thinking, the premier, number one, all time leader in violence worldwide should be black terrorism in the US, owing to centuries of incredible nasty.

Quote:
That is, unless there is some absolutely overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Here it is: all forms of violence and restriction of rights based on a system or belief set normally state the reason for it. That is, the first issue to get a handle on is that humans feel that truth authorizes and sanctions. From reading a death sentence in a criminal court in Texas to ISIS making a video slicing necks, and everywhere in between, such as for declarations of war, you will find humans feel a need to justify and explain.

Truth itself, and how it is handled, is the first issue to tackle in order to get out of the starting gate in examining the relation between beliefs and actions.

Quote:
Studying "radical/political Islam" as a religious phenomenon first and foremost is, in my view, grossly misleading. No one could possibly doubt that religion affects how people think and act,
Belief is related to action, but...
Quote:
but those effects can only be understood by first carefully studying the more immediate causes of the conflicts.
Backdoored assumption, and had you read my prior post, you would also know the examination of any given creed comes last, not first. Your reasoning here has the appearance of virtue signalling.

D- on your homework. But A for showing up.
__________________
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 3rd November 2017, 08:25 AM   #222
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,105
David Mo, do you believe that rule 12 is a contradiction? Do you believe that you violate this rule every time you criticize an idea?
Quote:
12. “Address the argument, not the arguer." Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer.
I Am The Scum 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 3rd November 2017, 08:42 AM   #223
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,615
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Backdoored assumption, and had you read my prior post, you would also know the examination of any given creed comes last, not first. Your reasoning here has the appearance of virtue signalling.

D- on your homework. But A for showing up.
And yet you fail to contextualize the role of the creed, opting instead for sweeping assertions.

Also, I suggest workimg on your writing style to explain your thinking in more concrete terms. It, frankly, is not very clear.
__________________
"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 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 3rd November 2017, 09:08 AM   #224
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,921
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
David Mo, do you believe that rule 12 is a contradiction? Do you believe that you violate this rule every time you criticize an idea?
Sorry. This is other issue.

My rules are:
Avoid offensive utterances if you can.
Don't be unnecessarily aggressive.
Make your argument effective.
Be aware who is your opponent.
Etc.

Dialectical and rhetorical rules, no more. And political politeness, if I can say so.
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 3rd November 2017, 09:26 AM   #225
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,105
So the answer to my questions would be....?
I Am The Scum 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 3rd November 2017, 11:54 PM   #226
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,921
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
So the answer to my questions would be....?
Rule 12 is aimed to prevent drifting the debate toward personal attacks without reference to the issue. Rule 0 ("Be civil and polite") prevents that the arguments be deliberartely offensive.

Of course, the absolute separation between our ideas and ourselves is impossible.

Is your question answered?
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 4th November 2017, 12:33 AM   #227
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,921
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
That would mean that exclusive criticism of a specific religion is never possible, as any criticism of a specific religion would always also be an attack on the believers of that religion.
In that case i think there should also be some apologies from atheists for a lot of criticism of Christianity during the last several hundred years.
E.g. Life of Brian i mentioned would then require an apology as it was at least perceived by Christians aas an attack upon their beliefs, which according to what you say was an attack on them and therefore an apology is due.
I don’t think that every Christian could be seriously offended by a film that never makes a reference to Jesus. Extreme fundamentalists yes, of course. But every Christian would be offended if I say that “Jesus was a hysterical… etc.” The risk of offense is ever present. Not offend anyone is almost impossible and I don’t care if my words offend certain people too sensitive. But universal and brutal disqualifications are dangerous. I don’t like to spit on the crucifix, you know. Neither on the Koran.
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
As said above, then all exclusive criticism of Islam is impossible.
(…)
Presume for a moment someone honestly arrives at the conclusion Mohammed was a pedophile or Jesus was a hysterical bastard that ... (pick whichever you like more).
According to what you say it seems someone having such an opinion, is ethically required to not voice it.
“The issue is not whether the criticism is correct or false, but whether and how one would be allowed to bring it into public”. You have said so. We ought to evaluate how and if our truth is useful in these circumstances and what consequences it would carry. And how can you say the same with other words. This is also ethics.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Before deciding which "liberal" or for political purposes preferable interpretations one should support and how to support them, one would first need to understand the "non-liberal" interpretations and their effects for being able to identify "liberal" interpretations and helping them counter the "non-liberal".
I agree.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
But i do not think it can be countered by acting as if Islam has absolutely nothing to with terrorism. (…)
I have not said that the Koran has nothing to do with terrorism. I say that some interpretations of it do so. We have the same problem with the Bible and other sacred books. The case of Islam is not so specific.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
And what would you make of the following line of reasoning within a police force:
1. We certainly do not doubt that religion affects how people think and act.
2. In the community we are required to protect about 3000 people have been murdered by suspects claiming themselves to be motivated by religion X, so claiming that the effect of their religion upon themselves was that of incitement to murder or at least encouragement to act so. Furthermore numerous suspects stopped in the process of planing murder also claimed similar things..
And what to be done if…
1…. other people claim to be also believers in ReligionX and nevertheless they claim that…
2…. they are against those that have murdered 3.000 people and…
3. …2.500 victims of these murderers were members of their ReligionX?

The problem is delicate but I know only a thing: I would avoid including in the same bag the killers and the victims. In no way.

Of course, religion affects how people think and act. This is almost a tautology. But the same religion doesn’t affect in the same way different people. Therefore you ought to be respectful with the people that arrive to the same place where you are by different ways. Even if you think that these ways are worse than yours. The debate about the ways is secondary and will depend of the attitude of the participants. My position would be different whether the opponent claims the superiority of his position or maintains that religion is a private issue and atheism is so respectable as belief. My own attitude will depend of my opponent.
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 4th November 2017, 12:56 AM   #228
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,921
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Therefore, as a police force sworn to protect the live of the people in our community, we must at least have an eye upon what religious teachings are promoted in religious centers of religion X; this could both help preventing and solving some of those murders with suspects claiming to be motivated towards their crime by some religious teachings of religion X.

The police force never considers to monitor religious centers of religion Y the same way, as no suspects or crimes were ever reported with either admission as in 2. or evidence pointing to something like in 2.
Your example is too elusive. What means “to put an eye”? What means “monitor”?
Whatever it means, the police cannot show that the whole mass of believers are suspected. And more less that some legal measures were taken against the whole mass of believers. This is why undiscriminated controls on “Hispanic”, “black” or “like Muslim” population are usually considered racist and discriminative. This is why the police can put an eye on some places suspected to be centers of terrorist indoctrination, but not over the X-believers as a whole.

Last edited by David Mo; 4th November 2017 at 02:25 AM.
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 4th November 2017, 08:38 AM   #229
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,292
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don’t think that every Christian could be seriously offended by a film that never makes a reference to Jesus. Extreme fundamentalists yes, of course. But every Christian would be offended if I say that “Jesus was a hysterical… etc.” The risk of offense is ever present. Not offend anyone is almost impossible and I don’t care if my words offend certain people too sensitive.
So offending and attacking some people by attacking their religion is ok, while offending and attacking some other people by attacking their religion is not ok.

What is the criteria beyond whom you personally care about?

Besides, i am quite certain that some Muslims would not be offended by my argument of quran being not verbatim from Allah via reference to some of Mohammed's supposed or real vices. So what is the percentage of offended Muslims for it to be ok or not ok?

And i am quite certain that a relevant number of christians would not be offended by calling Jesus what you called him; of course, some would be offended; which again gives rise to the question of the quota or number of people to be offended being too much.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
“The issue is not whether the criticism is correct or false, but whether and how one would be allowed to bring it into public”. You have said so. We ought to evaluate how and if our truth is useful in these circumstances and what consequences it would carry. And how can you say the same with other words. This is also ethics.
But maybe i misunderstand you and your rejection of too harsh criticism is not fundamental, but just "tactical"; e.g. you think that due to the offensiveness of some criticism such criticism is not helpful in something like furthering peace or enlightment or whatever.

Which would mean that you would not object some vastly offensive criticism which is demeaning to every single Muslim or Christian as long as its consequences would be positive. Correct?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The case of Islam is not so specific.
I disagree; while other religions also have their problems the case of Islam is specific in regard to the scope; in my opinion the adverse effects of the contents of Islam are magnitudes over the adverse effects of Buddhism or Hinduism (and the only attempt to counter this i ever received was something like "There are also violent Buddhist", which of course cannot counter this claim, as the claim implies that there are also some violent Buddhist).


Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
And what to be done if…
1…. other people claim to be also believers in ReligionX and nevertheless they claim that…
2…. they are against those that have murdered 3.000 people and…
3. …2.500 victims of these murderers were members of their ReligionX?
Answering first before asking counter-questions is preferable.

But i will answer:

Then they will certainly be fine with the police trying to keep an eye upon whether someone tries to spread teachings rejected by themselves and will give the police helpful advice how to best stay aware of such problematic activity.

It is even not unplausbile, that they will voluntary report people to the police who spread those murder-inciting teachings, which they themselve reject anyway.

So i do not see any problem there.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The problem is delicate but I know only a thing: I would avoid including in the same bag the killers and the victims. In no way.
Which the police would not do; they will only try to identify if someone spreads those murder-inciting teachings which are anyway rejected by the majority of the respective believers.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Of course, religion affects how people think and act. This is almost a tautology. But the same religion doesn’t affect in the same way different people. Therefore you ought to be respectful with the people that arrive to the same place where you are by different ways. Even if you think that these ways are worse than yours. The debate about the ways is secondary and will depend of the attitude of the participants. My position would be different whether the opponent claims the superiority of his position or maintains that religion is a private issue and atheism is so respectable as belief. My own attitude will depend of my opponent.
Your personal approach to debate was not at issue.

At issue was, whether and how a police force having evidence that certain teachings have a relevant tendency to incite murder might be trying to monitor if and who spreads such teachings.

And at stake is not only who feels offended but at stake might also be whether the police can prevent some murder.
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 4th November 2017, 08:43 AM   #230
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,292
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Your example is too elusive. What means “to put an eye”? What means “monitor”?


Whatever it means, the police cannot show that the whole mass of believers are suspected.
Which the police doesn't do, if they are after specific teachings, which are not consider valid by all of such believers.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
And more less that some legal measures were taken against the whole mass of believers. This is why undiscriminated controls on “Hispanic”, “black” or “like Muslim” population are usually considered racist and discriminative. This is why the police can put an eye on some places suspected to be centers of terrorist indoctrination, but not over the X-believers as a whole.
I was talking about checking what happens in religious centers. That is observation of some places, where at least a potential for spread of murder-inciting teaching is non-zero.

So no problem there.

And please do not continue to say, what the police is not allowed to do; explain what they are allowed to do.

They know that certain teachings are connected to murder. What are they allowed to do about that? Try to find out if somebody spreads such teachings? How are they allowed to do that?
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 4th November 2017, 11:04 PM   #231
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,105
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Is your question answered?
Not really, no. I think you're missing the point, so I'll just get right down to it:

Quote:
Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer.
AGREE or DISAGREE?
I Am The Scum 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 4th November 2017, 11:17 PM   #232
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,921
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
AGREE or DISAGREE?
...if your opinion is not offensive.

"Your idea is stupid and ethically revolting".

How do you see this? Is it an attack against the idea or the person? Or both?

I am waiting your answer.
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 5th November 2017, 12:42 AM   #233
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,921
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
So offending and attacking some people by attacking their religion is ok, while offending and attacking some other people by attacking their religion is not ok.
Of course, no.
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
What is the criteria beyond whom you personally care about?
Circumstances and dialectical opponent’s attitude decide. It depends of the nature of arguments and his respect for my own position.

Dialectics is like a chess game. Your move depends of the position of opponent’s pieces and his last moves. But I have not a determinate casuistic. There is something intuitive in the choice, just like chess.
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Besides, i am quite certain that some Muslims would not be offended by my argument of quran being not verbatim from Allah via reference to some of Mohammed's supposed or real vices. So what is the percentage of offended Muslims for it to be ok or not ok?

And i am quite certain that a relevant number of christians would not be offended by calling Jesus what you called him; of course, some would be offended; which again gives rise to the question of the quota or number of people to be offended being too much.
I cannot speak of percentages. They would be a lot in both cases.
NOTE: the Christians you know are very "special". Truly.


Originally Posted by Carn View Post
But maybe i misunderstand you and your rejection of too harsh criticism is not fundamental, but just "tactical"; e.g. you think that due to the offensiveness of some criticism such criticism is not helpful in something like furthering peace or enlightment or whatever.
Which would mean that you would not object some vastly offensive criticism which is demeaning to every single Muslim or Christian as long as its consequences would be positive. Correct?
In a general sense, yes. More particular precisions are need.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
I disagree; while other religions also have their problems the case of Islam is specific in regard to the scope; in my opinion the adverse effects of the contents of Islam are magnitudes over the adverse effects of Buddhism or Hinduism (and the only attempt to counter this i ever received was something like "There are also violent Buddhist", which of course cannot counter this claim, as the claim implies that there are also some violent Buddhist).
If the “adverse effects” of the Islam are “magnitudes over” whatever you want this is due to particular political and social circumstances that affect some branches, individuals and groups of the Islam and not others. Are you ready to accept the criticism against the political and social background of the Islamist terrorism or you pretends to discuss in the pure kingdom of ideas? Are you ready to accept a debate about the neo-colonialism as an important cause of the Islamic terrorism? Are you ready to discuss about what reason makes that certain Muslim groups be aggressive and others not?


Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Your personal approach to debate was not at issue.
At issue was, whether and how a police force having evidence that certain teachings have a relevant tendency to incite murder might be trying to monitor if and who spreads such teachings.
And at stake is not only who feels offended but at stake might also be whether the police can prevent some murder.
Are you a supporter of the way Mr. Duterte is implementing the war against crime in the Philippines? Do you know that totalitarian regimes as USSR were more “efficace” against crime that democratic methods? No. “Effectiveness” is not the unique criterion to evaluate the work of police. This could be converted in a dangerous totalitarian argument.

When I say “to offend” a minority I am also speaking of civil rights that are the foundation of modern democracies. You cannot “put under vigilance” all the black people with the excuse that in sub-Saharan Africa there are many cruel wars.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
And please do not continue to say, what the police is not allowed to do; explain what they are allowed to do.
They know that certain teachings are connected to murder. What are they allowed to do about that? Try to find out if somebody spreads such teachings? How are they allowed to do that?
I am not an expert in police techniques. I can only say when some particular police action is not according to civil rights or it is discriminative.

I have answered to your last questions throughout all my comments. Excuse me but I am not going to answer again. Our disagreement is based on that you seem believe that the crimes of Islamic terrorism depend only —or mainly— of the Koran and therefore every Muslim —believer in the Koran— can be suspected to be a supporter of terrorism and can be investigated under this presupposition until he proves the contrary. I don't like this view because it may led to unfair and dangerous acts of racist orientation. And you think that my view is ineffective and/or hides a pro-Islam favouritism.

I don't think that much more can be said on this issue.
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 5th November 2017, 02:20 AM   #234
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,162
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
And yet you fail to contextualize the role of the creed, opting instead for sweeping assertions.

Also, I suggest workimg on your writing style to explain your thinking in more concrete terms. It, frankly, is not very clear.
Once again, you argue with reference to a given creed, eschewing the general case that comes prior. I think my arguments are clear. Addressing them effectively is hard work. I do not see any effort commensurate with advancing the type of reasoned argument I have been seeking from you, so yes, this conversation is now over.
__________________
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 5th November 2017, 05:06 AM   #235
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,615
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Once again, you argue with reference to a given creed, eschewing the general case that comes prior. I think my arguments are clear. Addressing them effectively is hard work. I do not see any effort commensurate with advancing the type of reasoned argument I have been seeking from you, so yes, this conversation is now over.
I reject your "general case" as relevant in-and-of itself.
__________________
"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 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 5th November 2017, 07:32 AM   #236
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,292
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I have answered to your last questions throughout all my comments.
That is techincally impossible, since the last few posts i asked questions DIFFERENT from those asked early in our discussion.

If you think they are all more or less the same question, then our discussion is bound to fail anyway due to some sort of communication problem.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Our disagreement is based on that you seem believe that the crimes of Islamic terrorism depend only —or mainly— of the Koran and therefore every Muslim —believer in the Koran— can be suspected to be a supporter of terrorism and can be investigated under this presupposition until he proves the contrary. I don't like this view because it may led to unfair and dangerous acts of racist orientation. And you think that my view is ineffective and/or hides a pro-Islam favouritism.
That was not the issue of my last questions, especially regarding those about how the police might act.

And what you claim what my view is, is not my view; again, communication failure.

Especially:
"and therefore every Muslim"

I would disagree with that "therefore", even if i assumed that "Islamic terrorism depend only —or mainly— of the Koran" was true.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Are you a supporter of the way Mr. Duterte is implementing the war against crime in the Philippines? Do you know that totalitarian regimes as USSR were more “efficace” against crime that democratic methods? No. “Effectiveness” is not the unique criterion to evaluate the work of police. This could be converted in a dangerous totalitarian argument.
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I can only say when some particular police action is not according to civil rights or it is discriminative.
I do not consider you to be capable of that. Thats because you answered my very general question about what police might do, if some murder-inciting teachings exist in some religion, with presuming that this is somehow similar to a "the end justifies the means"-approach.

Which the question was not.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
In a general sense, yes. More particular precisions are need.
Fine.

Then we mostly disagree about "tactics".
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 5th November 2017, 10:49 AM   #237
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,162
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I reject your "general case" as relevant in-and-of itself.
Please do so with all my bemused blessings.
__________________
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 5th November 2017, 12:03 PM   #238
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,815
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
That's a first-class ticket to a misleading metanarrative. Ideally, one studies different aspects of a phenomenon using different frameworks to capture the totality of the phenomenon.

But all that is secondary to a sensible grounding in primary (or as laymen, we usually have to be happy with secondary) sources. To what degree one can study a religion as an ideology, the study of how the tenets of that ideology results in certain tendencies in society is a monumental undertaking. A great deal of controversy persists to this day about the effect and nature of some of the most thoroughly researched ideologies, including ones that are far, far less complex and developed than a world religion.

It is overwhelmingly clear that the most important cause of the "violence" you talk about is fairly recent political events and conflicts concerning, essentially, material issues and somewhat generic exercises of power (such as imperialism). I would go as far as to say that these causes are almost completely succesful in explaining the violence. Only once we have identified areas that cannot be easily reconciled with such far more mundane causes does it become interesting and useful to ask questions concerning less concrete influences, such as culture and religion.

That is, unless there is some absolutely overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Studying "radical/political Islam" as a religious phenomenon first and foremost is, in my view, grossly misleading. No one could possibly doubt that religion affects how people think and act, but those effects can only be understood by first carefully studying the more immediate causes of the conflicts. You simply cannot take some generalizing first-principles approach based on your understanding of Islam and directly apply that (or, you can, but it's a terrible approach). Before you even think to study how Islam at large fits into a historical or current event, the event must be carefully contextualized and immediate, major factors must be controlled for.

The type of thinking you propose is how someone like Gibbon ended up with the ludicrous conclusion that Christianity caused the "fall of the Western Roman Empire", or how western academics long contorted themselves into believing the Ottoman Empire somehow managed to "decline" for 300 years straght. It's putting the cart before the horse.

You are talking about the need for “evidence”, and to quote your above words you are claiming that "It is overwhelmingly clear that the most important cause of the "violence" you talk about is fairly recent political events and conflicts concerning, essentially, material issues and somewhat generic exercises of power (such as imperialism). I would go as far as to say that these causes are almost completely succesful in explaining the violence".

You make that above quote without adding any caution as if to present it as unarguable fact, but what evidence do you produce to show how much or how little violence and persecution has been perpetrated in pursuit of Islam at various times from the 7th century until today? And how accurate do you think anyone can be today about what was actually happening in ancient history? Especially a history of something like a religion where there is an enormous self-interest from the followers of that religion and it's sympathetic “historians” to paint the religion in an especially favourable light?

Keep in mind that written histories like that are not science (often very far from it). It's accuracy is almost certainly very poor for many events. And the people who write about religious history are often hugely biased one way or the other. For example; in the threads here on the “Historicity of Jesus”, most of the writers that are being called “historians”, are actually “bible scholars”, theologians, and other interested active Christians in general. And the other thing that slowly became apparent in those “Historical Jesus” (“HJ”) threads, is that passages quoted from the holy books were usually presented as a fact of direct translation, but where it often turned out that specialist translators frequently disagree about what the correct translation of the words should actually be, and what certain key words really meant. So that when people today quote such passages from the bible, presenting the passage as evidence for either good and benevolent sentiments or else bad and vindictive sentiments, it has turned out that the translations themselves are often disputed or unreliable. And on top of all that, it is also the case that all (that's “All”, i.e. 100% of them) of those quoted passages from the earliest known biblical writing, come from copies made by Christians themselves many centuries after the claimed events (i.e. many centuries after Jesus and all the other main characters such as Paul and Pontius Pilate were all said to have died). And afaik, all those same problems will apply to whatever has been written about the history of Muhammed, the Koran, and the conduct of Muslims in pursuit of spreading Islam throughout the ages.

Have you listened on YouTube to the debates with Sam Harris on this subject? Perhaps you are one of those people who denounce Sam Harris as some sort of bigoted ignorant Islamophobe? There are quite a lot of so-called “atheists' on these forums who try dismiss people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins with silly insults like that. However, if you have listened to any of what Sam Harris says in all those interviews and debates, then if you are honest about it, you should accept that Harris is clearly a very patient and careful commentator on this entire issue of Islam and religion in general. He always makes highly reasoned and very careful precise arguments (when his opposition is invariably doing the exact opposite and making all sorts of wild and inaccurate claims in defence of Islam and Christianity). And he is clearly very well informed on the issues that he talks about … it's clear, and I would say to you that it's unarguable, that Harris has done some proper research on this subject of Islam and it's history in the context of current day Islamic terrorism, and he has clearly checked his facts.

But if you listen to all those numerous interviews with Harris on this subject, where he is arguing with people who like you are claiming that Islam has a largely benign and un-warlike history in comparison to Christianity, you should, if you are at all honest with yourself about what you are seeing and hearing in those interviews and debates, notice very early in their discussions that the opponents of Harris are in almost every single case very obviously being caught-out in making all manner of untrue statements and wild accusations etc., whereas in contrast Harris is entirely convincing in presenting an accurate properly researched/checked description of all of the events under discussion.

If you have not honestly paid much attention to what Harris says in those YouTube films, then you really need to do that. And you need to do it without prejudice.

The main points that Harris is making, are – (1) Islam is significantly different to Christianity, in that it strongly encourages it's male followers to partake in a “Jihad” to spread the religion following the example of Muhammed, who was according to Harris, less like a saintly religious leader/preacher and much more of a conquering warlord, and (2) by waging that Jihad as a physical fight, all those who die in that religious fight for the supremacy of Islam are promised by Allah a place in “paradise”, and iirc that automatically also gives a place in paradise to the dead fighters family too, so that (3) even today in mainstream Islam so called “martyrdom” of that kind (i.e. dying whilst fighting for Allah) is regarded in Islam as the most wonderful and noble thing that can happen to any Muslim. And in fact on that very point, in some of the UK court cases, the defendants were found to have written notes to various people saying how it was their dearest wish that they will be killed in their Jihad, how that would be the most wonderful thing that could ever possibly happen, and how they cannot wait to meet Allah in paradise etc.

Further points that Harris makes include, (4) all of the supposedly very radical or fundamentalist statements and actions taken by people like IS and Al Qaeda in their pursuit of an Islamic Caliphate, are actually direct acceptance of the words in the Koran … they are far less of a so-called “interpretation” than what is being said by the so-called “moderates” in Islam. IOW – one the main reasons why it's relatively easy for the leaders of those fundamentalist branches of Islam (i.e. the terrorists) to recruit pious young muslims to a cause of fighting a religious war/jihad, is because the passages which make those commands on the faithful, actually are in the Koran. Whereas, the so-called “moderates” are actually the ones who have to disregard many of the passages in the Koran and claim that those passages should not be taken literally because the moderates have now re-interpreted them to mean something other than what the words (the words of God himself!) actually say!

Point 5 is that we should take note of what the terrorists actually say themselves about their own actions and their own aims. And as I think I've pointed out to you several times now, all of their many hundreds of mission statements say exactly the same thing. They always insist that their aim is to create religious rule across all of the lands where they fighting, specifically in order to impose by force direct rule from a literal reading of the Koran … effectively taking the governing of those lands back to the way people were forced to live around the time of Muhammed. That's their only stated aim. No other aim is ever mentioned at all. That's their entire purpose. And their reason for doing that is that they insist that a direct “honest” reading of the Koran makes that goal a necessity and an absolute requirement for all true Muslims.

You can easily find for yourself on YouTube many dozens of examples of Sam Harris in debate & discussion on all these factors involved in what we now see as Islamic terrorism around the world since 9-11 (2001), covering exactly all the same discussions and points that have been aired in this thread, inc. all the same issues that you have raised (TubbaBlubba), but here is just one example where he's just giving some of his views on exactly this subject (t's quite a long discussion from Harris, but given what you have said in this thread, it's important that you take proper note of what people like Sam Harris say on this issue in film clips like this ... and by the way most of the serious academics & security analysts who I have heard talking about this in the UK, make all the exact same points that Harris makes) -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_ToLv3rt1M

Last edited by IanS; 5th November 2017 at 12:07 PM.
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 5th November 2017, 12:57 PM   #239
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,105
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
...if your opinion is not offensive.

"Your idea is stupid and ethically revolting".

How do you see this? Is it an attack against the idea or the person? Or both?

I am waiting your answer.
I think that's addressing the idea specifically, but I can understand why the individual would take it personally. However, you do not seem to be open to this distinction. Let's try one really mild example to see where we're at. Take the following sentence:

I'm pretty sure Mohammad never received any divine revelation.

Do you take that as an attack against the believer?
I Am The Scum 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 5th November 2017, 01:23 PM   #240
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,292
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
And afaik, all those same problems will apply to whatever has been written about the history of Muhammed, the Koran, and the conduct of Muslims in pursuit of spreading Islam throughout the ages.
It could be even worse.

All the respective texts were as far as we know compiled in an area having as a nearly absolute ruler someone claiming to be a legitimate spiritual and political sucessor of Mohammed.

Whatever was compiled about Mohammed and the founding generation was of direct political interest to these rulers and their allies.
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 02:16 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.