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 5th November 2017, 01:37 PM   #241
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
snip
I did not bother reading this tirade in detail, but I have two things to say:

1. Sam Harris is a twit who will not get a second of my time.

2. I haven't said that Islam was "not warlike". The Ottoman Empire was one of the greatest military powers in history, for one. Warfare and conquest was a reality of the past, regardless of culture and religion.

What you're misinterpreting is my insistence that social and material issues are the at the root of things such as ISIS, the Iranian Revolution, and many other things. This, frankly, isn't controversial. Colonialism and Imperialism happened. The Suez Canal crisis happened. The 1953 Coup d'Etat in Iran happened. Sykes-Picot... you get the idea.

The thing is, I don't need to provide you with detailed evidence of this, because I'm not arguing there's anything special about Islam or Christianity. If you want to show that the political instability etc of the Middle East is due to special features of Islam, that's on you, because that thesis has tremendous implications for our understanding of the Muslim world historically. I'm satisfied with perfectly ordinary political causes as the main explanation.
__________________
"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, 03:33 PM   #242
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,817
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I did not bother reading this tirade in detail, but I have two things to say:

1. Sam Harris is a twit who will not get a second of my time.

2. I haven't said that Islam was "not warlike". The Ottoman Empire was one of the greatest military powers in history, for one. Warfare and conquest was a reality of the past, regardless of culture and religion.

Good. The above is exactly what I expected you to say.

And its a very clear demonstration of why you cannot understand, or admit to yourself, the problems within Islam.
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, 05:21 PM   #243
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Good. The above is exactly what I expected you to say.

And its a very clear demonstration of why you cannot understand, or admit to yourself, the problems within Islam.
My response to a tirade of yours based on a false premise and centering around a video with a reactionary numbskull proves something?

Keep patting yourself on the back.

Caroline Finkel has a great quote in Osman's Dream (a book everyone imterested in Islam ought to read, rather than listening to pseudointellectuals like Harris):

Quote:
The 'black hole' that is Ottoman history is a cause for regret in and of itself, but more regrettable still is the present palpable 'iron curtain' of misunderstanding between the West and Muslims. This stems to a large degree from the West's 'Old Narrative' of the Ottoman Empire, which by extension is the narrative of many centuries of Islamic past. To understand those who are culturally and historically different from us -- rather than resorting to such labels as 'evil empire', 'fundamentalist' and 'terrorist' to mask our ignorance -- is a matter of urgency. The greatest hubris is to ask why 'they' are not like 'us', to accept our cultural biases lazily and without question, and to frame the problem in terms of 'what
went wrong'.
__________________
"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, 05:33 PM   #244
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,817
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I did not bother reading this tirade in detail, but I have two things to say:

1. Sam Harris is a twit who will not get a second of my time.

.

By the way it was not a “tirade” either. What it was, was a detailed explanation of why your beliefs are wrong about this subject, and an explanation of how and why authors like Sam Harris have dealt exhaustively with all of the claims that you have been making in defence of Islam.

What Harris is explaining to you, is exactly what I have explained to you. And I did not get my understanding of any of this from anything that Harris has said or written. But the reason for directing your attention to what Harris has said in all of his filmed debates and discussions on YouTube, and in his books, is that he is giving you a detailed, carefully explained, and pretty well researched explanation of all the numerous points that I have put to you, and for which you have no genuine rebuttal at all …

… nor will you ever be able to produce any rebuttal, except for a disingenuous or dangerously misguided one. Because all the known evidence and “facts” are against you … such as the facts about what the fundamentalist terrorists themselves repeatedly say about their aims and their entire and complete motivation for those aims.

You are simply one of a large number of apologists for Islam (and Christianity?), who seem to think the appalling situation of their continuous tens of thousands of deliberate planned mass murders, will be helped if you refuse to criticise the religion which they themselves say is the fundamental motivation for their murderous actions. They are, as they themselves repeatedly stress, waging a worldwide Jihad.

There are many people who do not want to face up to the truth about the role religion in the issue of Islamist fundamentalism. And like you they are actually acting as apologists for the most appalling religious atrocities being committed right before everyones eyes. But the problem with that apologist approach is that apart from being deliberately and dangerously dishonest, it's impossible to ever solve the problem of Islamic terrorism by deliberately lying to yourself and to everyone else about the central role of Islamic religion in all of this.

Last edited by IanS; 5th November 2017 at 05:34 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, 05:49 PM   #245
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Yes, yes, the Islamic world is a blobby, jihad-waging "they". Your line of thinking is worth no more effort to adress intellectually than that of a rabid antisemite.
__________________
"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, 06:48 PM   #246
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,469
Mohamed was a kiddie diddler.

Lot wanted to give his virgin daughters to the angry crowd to protect the strangers in his home.

Kids made fun of Moses bald head, so the lord sent bears after the kids to tear them apart to teach the world a lesson.

Let's all agree that religious faith includes ugly business.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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, 07:17 PM   #247
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Mohamed was a kiddie diddler.
For political reasons. While hardly the norm (the sheer volumes of early Islamic apologetia concerning A'isha proves that) it was not unheard of either.

Quote:
Kids made fun of Moses bald head, so the lord sent bears after the kids to tear them apart to teach the world a lesson.
That was Elisha. But yes, that's my favourite hilariously absurd bible passage.

Quote:
23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25 And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.
I love the matter-of-fact way it's interspersed between the tedious details of his journey.
__________________
"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, 07:58 PM   #248
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,469
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
For political reasons. While hardly the norm (the sheer volumes of early Islamic apologetia concerning A'isha proves that) it was not unheard of either.



That was Elisha. But yes, that's my favourite hilariously absurd bible passage.



I love the matter-of-fact way it's interspersed between the tedious details of his journey.
I stand corrected.

For all the corrections I received from the nuns, one would assume I'd correctly remember every player in the story. Thank the FSM they're not still around to correct me over mistaking Elisha for Moses.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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, 11:29 PM   #249
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,927
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
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?
It may be for many people. But the question is not whether this is an attack or not but if this possible attack is moderate and justified and what kind of answer is possible in a democratic society under the principles of freedom of expression and tolerance. My opinion is that this criticism is correct in any sense and that the answer cannot be violent or against the basic principle of freedom for criticism.

What is aberrant is not the feeling of offense when Muhammad is criticised, but the reaction that this feeling provokes in radical Islamists.
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 6th November 2017, 12:14 AM   #250
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,927
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
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.
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.(...)

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.

Then we mostly disagree about "tactics".
Either you explain yourself very bad or my English is horrible. Both things are possible.
Along your comments you have defended some criticism (“Muhammad was a pedophile...”; “The Koran incites terrorism...”) and political measures (“To take an eye on mosques...”) that include all Muslims in a unique block without distinction. The individuals that you have defended here (Wilders, Hirsi Ali...) claim for a “war ” or coercive laws against Islam as a whole. But you say now that you are not attacking every Muslim or that you don’t think that the Koran is a main source of terrorism. I am very surprised. Please, answer this question: What we have been discussing during these days?

I said:"I can only say when some particular police action is not according to civil rights or it is discriminative."
Your answer: "I do not consider you to be capable of that."

I don’t know why do you think that I am not able to know when a particular activity of the police may be an attack against civil rights. I have been working fifteen years for an International NGO that works for Human Rights and I can consider myself a —humble— expert in the issue. I have read a lot of documents on this issue, at least.

“Tactics”? If you like to call it so...
Whther you
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 6th November 2017, 12:19 AM   #251
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,296
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Caroline Finkel has a great quote in Osman's Dream (a book everyone imterested in Islam ought to read, rather than listening to pseudointellectuals like Harris):
You continue to wrongly presume what the position of those arguing against you actualle is.

As indication, let me quote from Osman's Dream, page 5, last paragraph:

"Was the Ottoman Empire motivated above all by commitement to 'holy war' (jihad) - the struggle against non-Muslims that was a canonical obligation upon all believers?"

source is the free avaible amazon version:
https://www.amazon.com/Osmans-Dream-...der_0465023975


So the book that you think would somehow cause other people to correct their seemingly erronerous notion, that there IS some sort of canonical obligation in Islam for some sort of mayhem vs e.g. non-Muslims, treats it without explanation as a given that there at least WAS some canonical obligation of that sort.

How can you ever think someone convinced that there IS some sort of problematic duty within Islamic thought and convinced that this might be a problem by constantly berating them and referring them to a book that says there at least WAS such a thing?

And yes, i noticed in Osman's Dream it is discussed whether that "Jihad obligation" played a role in the formation of the Ottoman Empire. Fine, discuss it all you like, maybe it didn't play a role.

But how could any of such arguments counter the argument that the old - and maybe in the Ottomanic Empire forgotten/irrelevant - obligation is alive today and some people are simply trying to fulfill this obligation?


Realy, i do not even get how that argument is supposed to work.

Last edited by Carn; 6th November 2017 at 01:00 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 6th November 2017, 12:29 AM   #252
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,180
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
... Your line of thinking is worth no more effort to adress intellectually than that of a rabid antisemite.
Here is a man recognizing the existence of "lines of thinking" and rejecting one he has identified. Fine, it's a start. Perhaps the gentleman would now like to define "line of thinking," and further explain why rejecting any one "line" makes sense. Why bother, unless thoughts do indeed have a relation to real outcomes?

Ideology -- political, religious, or supposedly scientific -- has consequences. For example, it forms the basis for political parties in democracy, whose elected politicians often act, and are tasked with, implementing those ideas with norms that affect public behaviors.

Ideas affect behavior, the general case. The relation is complex, but has some identifiable correlations. This is what might be explored using calm reasoning.

***
As for the post, it comes as part of a long string of ad-homs and one-liners with no arguments attached. Reported.
__________________
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 6th November 2017, 12:59 AM   #253
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,296
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
What we have been discussing during these days?
In the last post, i have tried to get an answer from you, how a police force might react to the general scenario that certain teachings sometimes spread within a certain religious community work as incitement to murder. That does not even require the religion to be Islam.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Along your comments you have defended some criticism (“Muhammad was a pedophile...”; “The Koran incites terrorism...”) ... that include all Muslims in a unique block without distinction.
As i explained several times, when i say something about Muhammad or the Koran i do not say anything about any Muslims much less about Muslims as a whole block.

To explain with another example, i might say that Karl Marx was incapable of both observing reality at least with only minor errors and of at least somewhat correct deduction from observation and furthermore Karl Marx lacked a sound ethical base; or in other words Karl Marx was an immoral idiot. For me that doesn't say anything about Socialists, except that it implies an encouragement to either abondon or at least emancipate Socialism beyond the stupidity of Karl Marx.

But in your ears it would be an indictment and attack upon all Socialists.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
and political measures (“To take an eye on mosques...”) that include all Muslims in a unique block without distinction.
Whatever observation of Mosques would take place, that does not include all Muslims, as not all Muslims do attend a mosque.

That is simply a logical error on your side; observation of some places a part of the Muslims visite is never an observation of all Muslims.

If one observes christiant churches, it is also not an observation of all christians as only some 20% regularly attend churches.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The individuals that you have defended here (Wilders, Hirsi Ali...) claim for a “war ” or coercive laws against Islam as a whole.
You are aware that defending someone does not mean agreement with everything the person says?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
But you say now that you are not attacking every Muslim or that you don’t think that the Koran is a main source of terrorism.
Again the same problem; you think the second half implies the first half.

I do not.

Koran is at least a very relevant factor for islamistic terrorism. If someone thinks this statement is intended as an attack on every Muslim, then that person is simply wrong; it is intended as an attack against a book.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I said:"I can only say when some particular police action is not according to civil rights or it is discriminative."
Your answer: "I do not consider you to be capable of that."

I don’t know why do you think that I am not able to know when a particular activity of the police may be an attack against civil rights. I have been working fifteen years for an International NGO that works for Human Rights and I can consider myself a —humble— expert in the issue. I have read a lot of documents on this issue, at least.
Then how can you miss that a question what a police force might do in a certain scenario is not equivalent with promotion of Duterte policies?


Think of the "classic" silend kidnapper issue:

Police has kidnapper and he even admits kidnapping. But the victim's whereabouts are unknown and as it has to be presumed that the victim is somewhere hidden and locked away with no means of escape and limited water or air supply. And the kidnapper is unwillingly to say where the victim is hidden even after being informed that the result in the long run (when the victim's body will be found) will be life long imprisonement for murder instead of just 10-20 years for kidnapping.

If one asks, what the police is allowed to do then, that question is not a statement that torture would then be ok; it is at most a question whether torture would be ok.

And it could simly be answered with:

The police cannot do anything beyond what they already do to save the life of the victim and if a relative of the victim tries out of fear for the life of the victim assaults the kidnapper to make him talk, the police is required to stop him with force and at worst shoot at him (which the police of course can and should avoid by never letting the relative near the kidnapper). Even if it were certain that the police could save the victim's life by torturing the kidnapper, the police must not do that.

And just the same with the obsrvation of religious centers, e.g.:
No, the police cannot do anything in regard to the religious centers; even if it were the only way to prevent a thousand murders, the police is not allowed to observe what is taught in the religious centers.


And by the way, long work in human rights group actually might hinder in fully contemplating such questions.

Because for a human rights group it is always also an issue of policy and how the public perceives some issue.

And while the answers that police must let the victim die because kidnapper's rights are so important or that maybe the police has to scrap some more bodies of the street because scrutinity into murder-inciting religious teachings is an absolute no-go might be the legally correct one, they are hard to sell.

Hence, such groups have a tendency not to give the actual correct answer but to instead make statements that are not actually answers to the questions (with the kidnapping case it is often "torture does not work"; which is not an answer, cause the question wasn't whether torture "works") but are helpful to politically promote what the human rights group think is the legally correct answer.
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 6th November 2017, 02:01 AM   #254
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Mohamed was a kiddie diddler.
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
For political reasons. While hardly the norm (the sheer volumes of early Islamic apologetia concerning A'isha proves that) it was not unheard of either.
I don't understand this reply. Is this supposed to excuse paedophilia, or was there another point you were trying to make here?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 02:09 AM   #255
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
You continue to wrongly presume what the position of those arguing against you actualle is.

As indication, let me quote from Osman's Dream, page 5, last paragraph:

"Was the Ottoman Empire motivated above all by commitement to 'holy war' (jihad) - the struggle against non-Muslims that was a canonical obligation upon all believers?"

source is the free avaible amazon version:
https://www.amazon.com/Osmans-Dream-...der_0465023975


So the book that you think would somehow cause other people to correct their seemingly erronerous notion, that there IS some sort of canonical obligation in Islam for some sort of mayhem vs e.g. non-Muslims, treats it without explanation as a given that there at least WAS some canonical obligation of that sort.

How can you ever think someone convinced that there IS some sort of problematic duty within Islamic thought and convinced that this might be a problem by constantly berating them and referring them to a book that says there at least WAS such a thing?

And yes, i noticed in Osman's Dream it is discussed whether that "Jihad obligation" played a role in the formation of the Ottoman Empire. Fine, discuss it all you like, maybe it didn't play a role.

But how could any of such arguments counter the argument that the old - and maybe in the Ottomanic Empire forgotten/irrelevant - obligation is alive today and some people are simply trying to fulfill this obligation?


Realy, i do not even get how that argument is supposed to work.
I have at no point suggested jihad is not a thing, nor that this idea plays no role today. I suggest reading the book, instead of quote mining it.

Are you suggesting that you have done some kind of scholarly analysis and reached the conclusion that the idea of "jihad" is crucial in the general political situation of the middle East?

You need to step back and forget what ISIS or Al-Qaeda say, and instead think about what allowed such groups to get power and soft support in the first place.
__________________
"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 6th November 2017, 02:11 AM   #256
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I don't understand this reply. Is this supposed to excuse paedophilia, or was there another point you were trying to make here?
Don't you think understanding the motivations of historical people in the context of their own times is important 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 6th November 2017, 02:13 AM   #257
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,817
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
My response to a tirade of yours based on a false premise and centering around a video with a reactionary numbskull proves something?

Keep patting yourself on the back.

Caroline Finkel has a great quote in Osman's Dream (a book everyone imterested in Islam ought to read, rather than listening to pseudointellectuals like Harris):

You just make yourself look like a fool when you describe Sam Harris as a "reactionary numbskull". Whatever anyone thinks of Harris (or any of the other prominent atheist activists of recent years ... Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Coyne, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, etc.), he is certainly not a "numbskull". It just shows how weak and disingenuous your arguments are when you try to belittle people in that way.

Look, what I have carefully explained to you at some length, is that all the evidence is actually against what you have been claiming. And in film clips like the one that I linked, Harris explains why that is the case and shows the unarguable evidence for that on every single point.

The fact that you want to ignore it and claim the opposite as an apologist for Islam and islamic terrorist mass murder, is both "your problem", but also its' a serious problem for all of humanity when apologists like you appear to be actually lending vocal support to Islamic fundamentalism and groups like IS, Al-Q, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram etc., ... because what is happening is that the sort of impressionable young Muslims in the west who are joining groups like IS and carrying out mass murder attacks in London, Paris, Madrid, Frankfurt etc., are not only being persuaded by the religious message from IS, but also finding what they regard as vocal support from western apologists like you! … in that sense, and to that extent, apologists like you are actually part of the problem.

What you should be doing in any situation like this (or almost in any part of your life), is investigating the issue as objectively and honestly as you reasonably can, to determine what the true evidence really is for such things as the terrorist murders from IS and their Muslim devotees in the west. And to repeat – all the honest genuine evidence shows, as Harris clearly explains (and as I have explained here), that the central motivation for groups like IS and their naïve western followers, is most definitely religious fundamentalism taken directly from the Koran, and every mission statement ever released by groups like IS has repeated exactly that as the cause, with no other cause or aim ever stated at all … and if you had watched that YouTube clip from Harris, you would have heard there where he is responding to various articles in one of the IS on-line magazines (they produce their own recruiting promotional magazine) where the IS writers set out in detail exactly that claim and motivation based entirely upon their religious beliefs in a literal direct reading of what they regard as the words of Allah himself in the Koran … they themselves have been telling you and everyone else for decades that their aim is an entirely religious one … the entire objective is to impose by force of religious war fundamentalist religious rule from the Koran in all the lands where IS is active.

They believe that Allah himself has commanded them in their holy books which cannot be challenged, to create by force of physical Jihad, i.e. mass murder and war, Islamic religious states ruled according to a literal direct reading of the Koran.

We will never be able to solve this problem (Islamic fundamentalist terrorism), until the western apologists (like you) start to admit the truth that is staring them in the face. It's not even a huge elephant in a tiny room, it's a 100ft elephant trying to be squeezed into a 1cm space … the problem is absolutely obvious to everyone, except that many western apologists, especially those with any remanents of religious belief still hanging around in their ideas, mistakenly think they will appear more politically correct and “tolerant” if they make all sorts of apologetic statements trying to place a shady veil over what is staring everyone in the face with groups like IS … and it's really not arguable, because IS themselves insist that it is not arguable!

Last edited by IanS; 6th November 2017 at 02:15 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 02:41 AM   #258
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,296
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I have at no point suggested jihad is not a thing, nor that this idea plays no role today.
Ok, maybe you did not suggest it.

But others seem to do:
https://www.nieuwwij.nl/english/kare...-christianity/
"Terrorism has nothing to do with Muhammad, any more than the Crusades had anything to do with Jesus."

and that complicates the discussion.

At least i think that the statement, that terrorism has nothing to with Muhammad, implies that the jihad Muhammed talked about does not play a role today.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Are you suggesting that you have done some kind of scholarly analysis and reached the conclusion that the idea of "jihad" is crucial in the general political situation of the middle East?
I would consider it at least so relevant that the above cited statement by Karen Armstrong has to be considered to be false.

As Karen Armstrong is supposedly an expert of that matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong#Reception

and yet seems to make statements that are simply false, in my eyes all arguments from authority regarding Islam and violence are a lot weaker than such arguments are anyway.

So while i have not conducted such study, the argument that some supposed expert conducted a study and arrived at a certain result counts little, if experts seem to say untrue statements about the issue.

Do you think that both Armstrong's statement:
"Terrorism has nothing to do with Muhammad"

and the position, that Jihad "is a thing" and "plays a role today",

could be true?


Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
You need to step back and forget what ISIS or Al-Qaeda say, and instead think about what allowed such groups to get power and soft support in the first place.
With any event there are a multitude of factors. If the absence of one factor would have the result that the event would not have happened and the factor is due to itself not usually irrelevant for such events, i call it a cause.

Often there are several such factors and therefore causes.

For example with an overspeeding car hitting a drunk pedestrian in the middle of the road, both the too high speed of the driver and the drukenness of the pedestrian might be a cause in the sense, that if one had been absent (so car not driving too fast or pedestrian not that drunk) the accident would not have happened.

And similas for some terror attacks there might be several causes. E.g. if one of:
- US mistakes in the middle east
- founding of Israel
- big oil reserves in the middle east

would not have happened/be the case, 9/11 might not have happened.

And in such list of causes, i think something like the following might also have been included:
- the islamic scripture is as it is

I do not see how you could counter the last being a cause in the described sense by arguing that there are other such causes in the described sense.
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 6th November 2017, 03:22 AM   #259
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
If the Islamic scriptures had "not existed as they are", to paraphrase you, then the world would have been a massively different place. Counterfactual reasoning in itself is epistemologically sketchy (such that historians are usually extremely careful to at all engage in it), let alone when extrapolated over 1400 years.
__________________
"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 6th November 2017, 03:31 AM   #260
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
But even taking your assertions at face value, look at the "jihad" waged by terrorist groups today. To whatever degree one can speak of an Islamic tradition of waging holy war, they don't really seem to be a continuous part of it, because they certainly don't care about the traditional rules:

- They are not lead by a widely recognized caliph.
- They engage in takfir (accusing Muslims of not being true Muslims).
- They frivolously harm civilians.
- They kill fellow Muslims en masse.
- They needlessly put their own lives at risk (suicide bombing).

... and so forth. I believe Bonner's Jihad in Islamic History is one of the briefer texts that cover this well, though honestly I haven't read it myself.
__________________
"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 6th November 2017, 05:34 AM   #261
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,296
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
If the Islamic scriptures had "not existed as they are", to paraphrase you, then the world would have been a massively different place.
Formulated that way it sounds like you are implying that Islamic scripture had a considerable effect upon the world.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Counterfactual reasoning in itself is epistemologically sketchy (such that historians are usually extremely careful to at all engage in it), let alone when extrapolated over 1400 years.
But actually this is the method in law to determine who the "guilty party" is.

And when the issue is whether a different wording of a sentence first written down in 7th, 8th or 9th century would have made a difference whether in 20th and 21th centuries some murder would have happened (which is at least possible if the murder quotes verbatim the 7th/8th/9th century sentence as his supposed motivation), then we are in such difficult situation. But that is not a reason to avoid the issue entirely.


And i am still interested whether you see yourself at odds with Karn Armstrong who said:

"Terrorism has nothing to do with Muhammad, any more than the Crusades had anything to do with Jesus."

while you said:
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I have at no point suggested jihad is not a thing, nor that this idea plays no role today.
Are these two statements excluding each other?
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 6th November 2017, 07:45 AM   #262
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,174
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
But even taking your assertions at face value, look at the "jihad" waged by terrorist groups today. To whatever degree one can speak of an Islamic tradition of waging holy war, they don't really seem to be a continuous part of it, because they certainly don't care about the traditional rules:

- They are not lead by a widely recognized caliph.
- They engage in takfir (accusing Muslims of not being true Muslims).
- They frivolously harm civilians.
- They kill fellow Muslims en masse.
- They needlessly put their own lives at risk (suicide bombing).

... and so forth. I believe Bonner's Jihad in Islamic History is one of the briefer texts that cover this well, though honestly I haven't read it myself.
Interesting point. Do you have a cite for the traditional rules of jihad?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 09:36 AM   #263
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,817
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Yes, yes, the Islamic world is a blobby, jihad-waging "they". Your line of thinking is worth no more effort to adress intellectually than that of a rabid antisemite.

I don't expect you to have anything credible or objective to say as a response to what I have said to you here or what authors & activists such as Sam Harris have explained for you. By your own admission, you are not listening, not reading, and you refuse to pay any attention. That's up to you. There is no law that says you must pay more honest objective attention to the evidence and the "facts" that are being set out in detail for you. You are in the fortunate position of being able to idle away your time on the internet disregarding it all and instead acting as an apologist for Islamic fundamentalists like IS. But whilst you do that, other people all around the world are paying with their lives ... many tens of thousands of them every year ... all deliberately slaughtered and often in the most appalling and barbaric ways, by the fanatical religious maniacs for whom you are inadvertently providing support.

I do not say that the best response of western democracies is to bomb IS or to have a military invasion of either of Iraq or Syria, or even to have that first invasion into Afghanistan with it's attempt to remove Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I was not advocating that at the time of 9-11, and I'm not advocating it now. But what I am advocating is the need for us all to be honest with ourselves as to what is actually motivating groups like IS, Al-Q, the Taliban, Boku Haram etc. And I am pointing out to you the inescapable fact that all those terrorist groups themselves say that their primary motivation is deeply religious ... the only aim that they ever claim to have is to create by force of Jihad Islamic fundamentalist rule wherever they can in all lands where they are active ...

... that's a religious aim, not a political one. There is no mention (ever) in the mission statements of wishing to build more & better hospitals, to have better and more benevolent care and support for the needy, disadvantaged, or disabled in their society ... nothing about funding more & improved schools & education, nothing about creating better more modern transport links, nothing like that at all. Instead the only aim is to create by force of mass murder and total subjugation of the people, a series of fundamentalist religious states governed entirely by self-appointed religious dictators acting out the literal words from the Koran.

Until religious apologists like you start admitting the truth of that situation, you are preventing the rest of the world from ever facing up to the root of the problem and ever hoping to find an effective solution.

The ultimate solution of course will have to be education. Education which explains to people in all countries, why religious belief in ancient gods and holy books etc., has been exposed by science as certainly nothing more than ancient ignorant superstition ... the insistent belief in gods, devils, miracles, prayers, and the actual words of gods in holy books that must be obeyed etc. But in the meantime, whilst we are waiting for apologists like you as well as the members of IS and Al-Q to avail themselves of a properly objective scientific education where they are able to tell what actually is genuine evidence vs what is not at all evidence of that which is being claimed, in that meantime it would help if the apologists are faced with the evidence that shows very clearly why their apologies for the atrocities of religions like Islam are only ever likely to be seen by IS and its' naive western recruits as a green light to go right ahead with their fanatical beliefs about a worldwide jihad not just against western military forces ("as you bomb us, so we bomb you"), but far more often directed against fellow Muslims who IS regard as "the wrong sort of Muslims" i.e. not sufficiently Islamic, not following exactly the word of Allah taken literally from his own words in the holiest book of all.
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 6th November 2017, 09:58 AM   #264
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,288
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
1. Sam Harris is a twit who will not get a second of my time.
Translation: he disagrees with you.
__________________
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 6th November 2017, 10:05 AM   #265
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,288
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Yes, yes, the Islamic world is a blobby, jihad-waging "they".
Did you even read what Ian wrote? Of course, if you ignore the arguments of people, or don't even bother to read them in the first place, you can create any strawman your mind concocts.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
If the Islamic scriptures had "not existed as they are", to paraphrase you, then the world would have been a massively different place.
Well, according to you it wouldn't have changed a whiff about terrorism.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
But even taking your assertions at face value, look at the "jihad" waged by terrorist groups today. To whatever degree one can speak of an Islamic tradition of waging holy war, they don't really seem to be a continuous part of it, because they certainly don't care about the traditional rules:

- They are not lead by a widely recognized caliph.
- They engage in takfir (accusing Muslims of not being true Muslims).
- They frivolously harm civilians.
- They kill fellow Muslims en masse.
- They needlessly put their own lives at risk (suicide bombing).

... and so forth. I believe Bonner's Jihad in Islamic History is one of the briefer texts that cover this well, though honestly I haven't read it myself.
And? Does that mean they're not motivated by religion, somehow?
__________________
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 6th November 2017, 12:58 PM   #266
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,817
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post

You need to step back and forget what ISIS or Al-Qaeda say, and instead think about what allowed such groups to get power and soft support in the first place.

When you say "think about what allowed such groups to get power and soft support in the first place", that quoted sentence (your sentence) assumes that IS and Al Qaeda already existed as groups (that means some number of people had already formed into those groups) before what you then describe as them getting "soft support" and "power". Is that what you actually meant to say?

If you meant to say that, then why do you think Al Qaeda (and later IS) ever formed in the first place?

What do you think their aim/mission was? Because they themselves have told you exactly what their mission has always been.

Incidently, since Al Qaeda and Bin laden were based in Afghanistan fighting alongside the Taliban who eventually seized power and declared the country to be under religious rule, what is your explanation for such things as the Taliban shooting 15 year old Malala Yousafzai through the head?

Malala Yousafzai was targeted for execution because she was using the internet to speak out for the education of girls in the Swat Valley region. The local Taliban leaders decided that was un-Islamic, and that her punishment should be to kill her. Was that a political act? Was she bombing the Taliban? Or were the Taliban acting as they themselves repeatedly said, from a sense of religious indignation, where they insisted that Malala Yousafzai was violating the laws of Allah?

What about the murder of 12 cartoonist journalists from the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris? Were the IS inspired Islamic attackers murdering those cartoonists on the streets of Paris because the cartoonists were bombing IS members? Was that a case of “so you bomb us, so we bomb you”? Or were the French cartoonists murdered because their cartoons offended religious beliefs about Muhammed? Do you think their religion is some sort of reasoned excuse for murdering 12 cartoonists in France?
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 6th November 2017, 01:54 PM   #267
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,680
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.
By the rules of the forum that is a discussion of the idea not the person, it may not be civil.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 02:21 PM   #268
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,876
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
There is no mention (ever) in the mission statements of wishing to build more & better hospitals, to have better and more benevolent care and support for the needy, disadvantaged, or disabled in their society ... nothing about funding more & improved schools & education, nothing about creating better more modern transport links, nothing like that at all.

Does that matter? I don't remember Thomas Payne writing that we needed our independence from England so we could build more hospitals. The American Revolution wasn't about creating better roads. It was basically, "Screw England!"

Even after we won, we floundered for years with multiple currencies and a nearly useless federal government. It was only after we tried to govern ourselves for a while that we rewrote a Constitution that made sense. Even then, all the civil rights stuff was thrown together as an afterthought (which is why they're amendments).

The French Revolution was "We really hate taxes." The Russians had to drop out of WWI to work on some sort of philosophy of government.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader 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 6th November 2017, 11:59 PM   #269
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,296
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
- They are not lead by a widely recognized caliph.
Since nobody noted it so far:

Whoever brings forth this point as somehow an argument that today islamists are breaching the rules of "jihad", has not sufficient knowledge to say anything about the issue.

Because at minimum there are two different issues:

- offensive jihad; thats when the caliph orders the attack upon some infidel land in need of being attacked; for this the order of the caliph is necessary (meaning without a caliph offensive jihad is not an option)

- defensive jihad; thats when some infidel army is operating within islamic land without consent of the legitimate ruler; in that circumstance no order by the caliph is necessary; instead any able-bodied muslim is to some extent required to act without any direct orders and any local legitimate ruler can also in islamic sense legitimately engage in jihad


So for something like attacking Israel soldiers in the modern state of Israel (which are infidels operating within Islamic land, as the modern state of Israel has no legitimacy in islamic thought) no order by a caliph is necessary; every single muslim is free to have a go at that; able-bodied muslims in the region have to some extent a religious duty for attacking Israel soldiers (though of course mindlessly attacking is not required and there might be other competing duties)

And also killing here and there some US soldiers being guests of a government not enforcing sharia law (which makes the governemtn illegitimate) is perfectly fine without orders from caliph (the issue of course which governements are legitimate and which aren't not clear; but when a group arrives at the conclusion that some government is illegtimate, all foreign soldiers are free game).

And also illegitimate rulers being proxies of infidels and their soldiers are of course also free game (being the henchmen of infidels of course makes one an infidel army).


So a lot of jihad slaughter in islamic lands is perfectly possible under rules of jihad even if no caliph ordered it.

Who is not aware of that, is simply too ignorant for any relevant statements about law of jihad.


There being no order by a caliph is usually only an issue, when attacking targets outside islamic countries.
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 7th November 2017, 12:06 AM   #270
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,927
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
By the rules of the forum that is a discussion of the idea not the person, it may not be civil.
Are you polite with ideas or with persons?

Do you consider the possibility that rule 12 was not clear on distinction between persons and ideas?
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 7th November 2017, 01:17 AM   #271
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,927
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
In the last post, i have tried to get an answer from you, (…)
As i explained several times, when i say something about Muhammad or the Koran i do not say anything about any Muslims much less about Muslims as a whole block.(…)
Whatever observation of Mosques would take place, that does not include all Muslims, as not all Muslims do attend a mosque.(…)
Koran is at least a very relevant factor for islamistic terrorism. If someone thinks this statement is intended as an attack on every Muslim, then that person is simply wrong; it is intended as an attack against a book.(…)
My question was not limited to the last comment, but what we are discussing along this thread. Please, answer this question: What we have been discussing during these days?

You continue with your confuse use of “Muslim” that allows you playing with words.
You have said in other comment: “All Muslims have Islam as religion.” The mosque is a sacred place for the Islam and the Muslims, therefore any attack against the mosque is an attack against Muslims as a whole. You have not precised what do you intend to say with “observation”, therefore I can not discuss if this is an attack. But I am sure that nobody feels well if the police consider you a suspect of terrorism ony because of the colour of your skin or your belief in the Paradise.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
To explain with another example, i might say that Karl Marx (…)
You are confussing again. Supporters of Marx are not called “Socialist” but Marxists. Even Socialism and Communism are different things. Your personal attack —was it personal?— would offend Marxist Communists. In any case, in order to proselitize somo of them I find it a little stupid — the idea, not you—. It would be better to argue without insults. The insult usually reveals a lack of security.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
You are aware that defending someone does not mean agreement with everything the person says?
We have been discussing the ideas uttered by Wilders, Hirsi Ali o Dawkins. Not the individuals.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
(…)Think of the "classic" silend kidnapper issue:
Police has kidnapper and he even admits kidnapping. (…)
And just the same with the obsrvation of religious centers, e.g.:
(…)
And by the way, long work in human rights group actually might hinder in fully contemplating such questions.
Because for a human rights group it is always also an issue of policy and how the public perceives some issue.
And while the answers that police must let the victim die because kidnapper's rights are so important or that maybe the police has to scrap some more bodies of the street because scrutinity into murder-inciting religious teachings is an absolute no-go might be the legally correct one, they are hard to sell.
Hence, such groups have a tendency not to give the actual correct answer but to instead make statements that are not actually answers to the questions (with the kidnapping case it is often "torture does not work"; which is not an answer, cause the question wasn't whether torture "works") but are helpful to politically promote what the human rights group think is the legally correct answer.
Are you telling the story of a film? No; your screenplay is not similar to a real case of terrorism. It is a Hollywood-like simplification. Torturers and executioners are not so nice in reality as in films. A police system where the torturers make law is not beautiful. I have a first-hand experience of that.

You continue to defend bad means in the name of good ends. Your screenplay is a classic. This is the argument of any totalitarian system and police regimes where the civil rights are wet paper. They have a supreme Good, they don’t like the torture, the Gulag, the extra-legal murder, but… Unfortunately it is defended by some “democrats” as Jean-Marie Le Pen or Donald Trump. Legitimacy of torture would involve the entire society in a process of deterioration with general consequences. Democracy cannot be defended by antidemocratic means. The empire of Law cannot be defended by the fall of Law. Have you heard about a certain Senator McCarthy? The case of the President of the Philippines is a paradigmatic one and it is worrying that you don’t want to speak of it.
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 7th November 2017, 03:31 AM   #272
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,817
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Does that matter? I don't remember Thomas Payne writing that we needed our independence from England so we could build more hospitals. The American Revolution wasn't about creating better roads. It was basically, "Screw England!"

Even after we won, we floundered for years with multiple currencies and a nearly useless federal government. It was only after we tried to govern ourselves for a while that we rewrote a Constitution that made sense. Even then, all the civil rights stuff was thrown together as an afterthought (which is why they're amendments).

The French Revolution was "We really hate taxes." The Russians had to drop out of WWI to work on some sort of philosophy of government.

Of course it matters. They (IS, the Taliban, Al Queda, etc.) do provide mission statements, and they have made those public statements many hundreds of times. They are telling everyone what they are intending to do. Their aim is entirely religious.

But also - (1) I doubt if you are right in thinking that none of those other cases that you mention ever had the protagonists setting out the changes they wanted to see in their country. And (2) the examples you give are things that happened hundreds of years ago when the world was very different place. But we are talking here about what IS and similar groups are doing now in the 21st century … many hundreds of years ago there were all sorts of religious conquests and religious persecutions which at the time many people no doubt thought were fully justified in maintaining the supremacy of a religion which was universally believed and thought to be totally supported by God himself … people once believed it was absolutely correct for Christian armies to conqcour like that … but we are talking here about the present day, and nobody now thinks it's acceptable for the Christian church to compel millions of followers to wage religious wars.

But perhaps more importantly – I think you may have misunderstood the point I was making. The point was not say that IS and Al-Qaeda etc. would be expected to make constant statements setting out something like an election manifesto of plans about all the changes they wanted to make. The point I am making is that IS and Al-Q have made hundreds of statements saying exactly what their aim is … but the only stated aim is to overthrow existing governments such as the one in Saudi Arabia purely and entirely because they insist that a much more radical reading of the Koran must be imposed on the population … that is their own stated reason (their only stated reason) for attempting to seize power in the lands where they are fighting … their reason or stated aim is not that they think existing taxation is punishing the people and needs to be reduced, or that they want to remove a government that actually exists not Saudi Arabia but thousands of miles away in another country such as the UK. No, none of that. Instead their clearly stated mission is to impose by force upon the population, hard-line strict rule directly from the 7th century commands of the Koran ... and that is very different indeed from the cases which you raised.
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 7th November 2017, 04:34 AM   #273
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,296
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
My question was not limited to the last comment, but what we are discussing along this thread. Please, answer this question: What we have been discussing during these days?
We have among other things discussed, whether Islamic scripture/teachings is a relevnat factor in islamistic terrorism.

And we have discussed, if and how it would be ok to voice such criticism against Islam (which on should't as i understood you).

And now i tried to get an answer from you, what the police might or might not do in case some religious teachings are a relevant factor.

That are different questions and the answer of one of the questions does not determine the answer to another one.


Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You continue with your confuse use of “Muslim” that allows you playing with words.
You are the confused one. "Muslim" denotes some human beings holding certain ideas dear, "Islam" denotes these ideas.

In my mind an attack on some ideas i hold dear is NOT an attack on me (which is probably to the better; otherwise i would have quite some beef with a lot of people). And i expect the same from any adult.

But i notice, that this is apparently too much to ask of some.

And the main difference between us, which seems impossible to be bridged.


Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You have not precised what do you intend to say with “observation”, therefore I can not discuss if this is an attack. But I am sure that nobody feels well if the police consider you a suspect of terrorism ony because of the colour of your skin or your belief in the Paradise.
You could have said, if there are any things not an attack that the police might do.

But to help you:
Sending once a month an arabic (or whatever language is most useful) speaking undercover cop to the mosque to listen, whether any of the known problematic teachings are preached or talked about and whether problematic material is distributed/sold there; adjusting the frequency depending on the results (e.g. if several times in a row the cop finds nothing problematic, frequency is reduced or even the center is not checked upon anymore).

Note that such a police action does not treat anyone as a suspect; it treats effectively religious teachings as suspicious, which one could argue to be justified, as some religious teachings where incitement to murder (in the scenario described).


And treating color of skin issues exactly like dislike of some beleive is simply beyond the pale of any reasonable legal analysis.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Your personal attack —was it personal?— would offend Marxist Communists. In any case, in order to proselitize somo of them I find it a little stupid — the idea, not you—. It would be better to argue without insults. The insult usually reveals a lack of security.
Which is mine to decide, whether i think the approach is useful or not. But an attack upon Marx is not a personal attack upon anyone holding Marx dear (which socialists also do). And it has nothing to with color of skin as you implied above.


Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Are you telling the story of a film? No; your screenplay is not similar to a real case of terrorism. It is a Hollywood-like simplification. Torturers and executioners are not so nice in reality as in films. A police system where the torturers make law is not beautiful. I have a first-hand experience of that.

You continue to defend bad means in the name of good ends. Your screenplay is a classic. This is the argument of any totalitarian system and police regimes where the civil rights are wet paper. They have a supreme Good, they don’t like the torture, the Gulag, the extra-legal murder, but… Unfortunately it is defended by some “democrats” as Jean-Marie Le Pen or Donald Trump. Legitimacy of torture would involve the entire society in a process of deterioration with general consequences. Democracy cannot be defended by antidemocratic means. The empire of Law cannot be defended by the fall of Law. Have you heard about a certain Senator McCarthy? The case of the President of the Philippines is a paradigmatic one and it is worrying that you don’t want to speak of it.
Ah, ok.

That explains a lot.

What i am supposed to say about Duterte? That he is guilty of murder for all i know? That is pretty obvious, but for you:
For all i know, Duterte is guilty of 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 7th November 2017, 07:11 AM   #274
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,296
Actually the discussion is somehow crazy.

I cite the words of Mohammed, though not the 7th century one, but someone with last name Atta:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...m.september113
"THE LAST NIGHT

...

3) Read al-Tawba and Anfal [traditional war chapters from the Qur'an] and reflect on their meanings and remember all of the things God has promised for the martyrs.

...

Do not seek revenge for yourself. Strike for God's sake. One time Ali bin Abi Talib [a companion and close relative of the prophet Muhammad], fought with a non-believer. The non-believer spit on Ali, may God bless him. Ali [unclear] his sword, but did not strike him. When the battle was over, the companions of the prophet asked him why he had not smitten the non-believer. He said, 'After he spat at me, I was afraid I would be striking at him in revenge for myself, so I lifted my sword.' After he renewed his intentions, he went back and killed the man. This means that before you do anything, make sure your soul is prepared to do everything for God only.
..."

Literally in preparation for mass murder that guy made reading Koran and reflecting on the meaning an item on his checklist and reminded himself not to "strike" out of revenge but to "strike" for "God" only cause some buddy of Mohammed (7th century) supposedly also made sure not to strike out of revenge.

And yet here we have 16 years later a discussion effectively about whether its ok to raise the issue of whether Islamic scripture has something to do with islamistic terrorism and the one main argument is that circumstances, revenge, etc. are the only realy relevant issue and the other main argument is that its somehow too impolite.

It is plain ridiculous.
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 7th November 2017, 09:27 AM   #275
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,180
Given that the thread mostly appears to alternate between those advancing a thesis with supporting examples, and those claiming a statistically non-discriminating set of generic tit-for-tat causes for evil in the world, the only way to advance, perhaps, is to forge ahead with development of supported argument, stragglers be damned. So continuing on: given there seems to be great difficulty in accepting any thesis originating, or appearing to originate, with a post's author, while external references seem to somehow carry magic weight, as might name-dropping, I thought I'd cite a very recent paragraph from The Atlantic, in reference to the recent mass shooting in Texas.
Quote:
Mass shootings are often committed by lonely and unrooted men, suffering from both grandiose aspirations and petty grievances. The postmortem descriptors are practically rote: He was cold, weird, withdrawn, a loner (and, one must note, always “he”). It’s astonishingly rare to read the antonyms: He is almost never warm, welcoming, the most popular kid in school. Even when mass shootings are not, strictly speaking, terrorism, they still seem to adhere to a sort of dark and nearly invisible ideology of oppressive self-aggrandizement, a bid for greatness that requires the destruction of others. Just because there is no formal institution like ISIS to symbolize this strain of white rage doesn’t mean that the rage isn’t ideological. It’s possible that many instances of white-male mass-shooting violence are, in fact, driven by a media-inspired religion of grievance and greatness—a mass-distributed sickness for which male outcasts are most vulnerable to infection.
The above refers, with two examples, to what I have been calling an enabling narrative. An enabling narrative is that set of ideas and related actions found in any ideology or broader social worldview (see antebellum Old South) that expressly sanctions otherwise socially unacceptable behavior, including the denial of rights, mistreatment, and/or death of innocent victims, usually previously dehumanized and identified as valid targets.

Earlier in the same article, the author cites outside research:
Quote:
Diseases spread among individuals, but the contagion of mass shootings seems to spread through broadcast media. In an interview with The Atlantic in 2015, Sherry Towers, the ASU paper’s lead author, hypothesized that television, radio, and other media exposure might be the vectors through which one mass shooting infects the next perpetrator. Like a commercial, each event’s extraordinary coverage offers accidental advertising for depravity. One reason why mass-media coverage of shootings might inspire more shootings is that public glorification inspires some mass murderers.
And here we have a reference to what I have been terming "real or imagined cheering from the peanut gallery." That is, the effect on a potential actor of the perceived future approval from a peer group one wishes to please.

In the real world, it would appear there is indeed recognition of the relation between ideas and actions, between ideology and sanctioned behaviors, and between imagined grievance and peer groups authorizing remedial action from the shadows/social media (or in the open).
__________________
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; 7th November 2017 at 09:29 AM.
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 8th November 2017, 01:13 AM   #276
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,927
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
We have among other things discussed, whether Islamic scripture/teachings is a relevnat factor in islamistic terrorism.
And we have discussed, if and how it would be ok to voice such criticism against Islam (which on should't as i understood you).
And now i tried to get an answer from you, what the police might or might not do in case some religious teachings are a relevant factor.
That are different questions and the answer of one of the questions does not determine the answer to another one.
I disagree: they are linked questions and the answer to the last question depends of the others.
The first problem entails a different answer to the last question. If you believe that the Islam is the main cause of the Islamic terrorism you would confront the police action in a strong way and you can said that “We are in war against Islam”. This is the way of Wilders, Le Pen and others.
If I think that one of the most important causes of Islamic terrorism is an interpretation of Islam —among others—, I cannot say that the Islam is our enemy and I cannot justify a police action that implies the culpability of Muslims as a whole.



Originally Posted by Carn View Post
You are the confused one. "Muslim" denotes some human beings holding certain ideas dear, "Islam" denotes these ideas.
In my mind an attack on some ideas i hold dear is NOT an attack on me ...
The first proposition doesn’t support the second proposition. A man is his beliefs and emotions. Without your beliefs, etc., you are nothing. If you ridicule his beliefs you ridicule himself. If you attack his ideas you attack himself. I am aware that when I attack Islam I am attacking Muslims. But to offend is other thing. I will try that my attack wouldn't be offensive for those that don't deserve it. Noblesse oblige.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
You could have said, if there are any things not an attack that the police might do.
But to help you:
Sending once a month an arabic (or whatever language is most useful) speaking undercover cop to the mosque to listen, whether any of the known problematic teachings are preached or talked about and whether problematic material is distributed/sold there; adjusting the frequency depending on the results (e.g. if several times in a row the cop finds nothing problematic, frequency is reduced or even the center is not checked upon anymore).
Note that such a police action does not treat anyone as a suspect; it treats effectively religious teachings as suspicious, which one could argue to be justified, as some religious teachings where incitement to murder (in the scenario described).
The practice of undercover agents and informers is usual in may fields of police action. I suppose that the same police will consider useless to place one of them in every mosque. I suppose that they have sufficient hints of what places to survey and what not. This has nothing to do with measures against Islam as a whole. I thought that you was defending other thing.

ADDED NOTE: A big amount of terrorists were indoctrinated by Internet and not in regular mosques. I don't know the exact amount but the news frequently tell so.
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Which is mine to decide, whether i think the approach is useful or not. But an attack upon Marx is not a personal attack upon anyone holding Marx dear (which socialists also do).
You have a strange idea of what a Socialist is. Majority of Socialists don’t “hold Marx dear”. Only Communists do. Except libertarian Communists, of course.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
That explains a lot.
I am glad of this.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
For all i know, Duterte is guilty of murder.
He is more than so. He has implemented a police regime that eliminates people without trial and fosters denunciation and police impunity. This apparatus of power is aimed against the low layers of street delinquents but also against democratic opponents. His system is factually a dictatorship supported by a majority that only sees the superficial effects of this repressive policy and is bombed with a massive propaganda.
This began with claims for a “War against crime” and the necessity of going beyond legal limitations. You can take this path but you never will know where it ends.

Last edited by David Mo; 8th November 2017 at 01:26 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 8th November 2017, 02:03 AM   #277
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,817
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Does that matter? I don't remember Thomas Payne writing that we needed our independence from England so we could build more hospitals. The American Revolution wasn't about creating better roads. It was basically, "Screw England!"

Even after we won, we floundered for years with multiple currencies and a nearly useless federal government. It was only after we tried to govern ourselves for a while that we rewrote a Constitution that made sense. Even then, all the civil rights stuff was thrown together as an afterthought (which is why they're amendments).

The French Revolution was "We really hate taxes." The Russians had to drop out of WWI to work on some sort of philosophy of government.

Of course it matters. ...

.... etc as posted above.

.

Just to be clear; I could have put my above reply more simply by noting that the examples you gave were not religious wars. In none of those examples were the people/nations fighting to impose a religious dictatorship from a 7th century holy book, and for that reason the examples were not comparable. That's really the point, and it's a huge difference.

In the present case of IS, Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram and others, they are fighting a religious world war taken directly from what they insist are Gods commands in their holy book.
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 8th November 2017, 05:07 AM   #278
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,296
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I disagree: they are linked questions and the answer to the last question depends of the others.
But you just answered the third question:

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The practice of undercover agents and informers is usual in may fields of police action. I suppose that the same police will consider useless to place one of them in every mosque. I suppose that they have sufficient hints of what places to survey and what not.
The third question was a question based on presuming a certain answer to the first question. Hence it could be answered independently upon what the answer to the first question is, as you just demonstrated.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post


The first proposition doesn’t support the second proposition. A man is his beliefs and emotions. Without your beliefs, etc., you are nothing. If you ridicule his beliefs you ridicule himself. If you attack his ideas you attack himself. I am aware that when I attack Islam I am attacking Muslims. But to offend is other thing. I will try that my attack wouldn't be offensive for those that don't deserve it. Noblesse oblige.
So you are in favor of treating 18+ year old human beings as non-adults and instead treat them like inferior children. Ok, not my approach.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
He is more than so. He has implemented a police regime that eliminates people without trial and fosters denunciation and police impunity. This apparatus of power is aimed against the low layers of street delinquents but also against democratic opponents. His system is factually a dictatorship supported by a majority that only sees the superficial effects of this repressive policy and is bombed with a massive propaganda.
This began with claims for a “War against crime” and the necessity of going beyond legal limitations. You can take this path but you never will know where it ends.
"more"?

Above murder in my view there is only mass murder and/or genocide. I called out Duterte for the worst crime i am confident to call him out (though maybe mass murderer would already fit, but i am not certain how many murders are realy incited by Duterte in a legal sense; so due to benefit of doubt for the accused i settel for murder).

Some hypothetical dictator who somehow gets along without murdering anybody would not rank as low in my eyes as a murderer (though in real life such dictators probably do not exist).
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 8th November 2017, 11:28 PM   #279
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,927
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
So you are in favor of treating 18+ year old human beings as non-adults and instead treat them like inferior children.
Why? I don’t think that respect is a matter of age.


Originally Posted by Carn View Post
"more"?
Above murder in my view there is only mass murder and/or genocide. I called out Duterte for the worst crime i am confident to call him out (though maybe mass murderer would already fit, but i am not certain how many murders are realy incited by Duterte in a legal sense; so due to benefit of doubt for the accused i settel for murder).
More things than a murderer. Dictatorship is also a crime against other things than life. Independence of justice, for example.
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 9th November 2017, 01:45 AM   #280
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,296
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Why? I don’t think that respect is a matter of age.
Because you treat them from the assumption that they are emotionally and intelectually not able to differentiate between attacks on them and attacks on some idea they hold dear. And such a character flaw is usually something i only find unproblematic in minors; with adults it is irritating at best.

To make you understand, presume for a second Amnesty International should refrain from attacking ideas i hold dear. So that if i say to Amnesty: "The way you publically act and argue, you attack this idea dear to me in this way and in this way, etc. , please do not do it."

Should then Amnesty realy say: "Ok, you are just 1 out of 7 billion, but since we follow David Mo's suggestion not to attack ideas hold dear by somebody, we will adjust as follows: ..."

Is that what you suggest? That due my personal sensibilities an entire organization should adjust it's approach to some matter?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
More things than a murderer. Dictatorship is also a crime against other things than life. Independence of justice, for example.
Which is compared to one or several murders a less important crime.

Violations of independece of justice happen regularly even in states with awareness about the importance of an independent justice (it's just not regularly noticed).
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 12:46 AM.
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.