I wrote: "Any of the ones quoting
the violent and intolerant verses and claiming they are commands from a God that there is zero proof exists or that could have revealed the words,"
In answering your questions about "which Imams?"
Just like I would do the same of leaders of the Westboro Baptist Church, or leaders of the messianic ultra-orthodox Jewish movements who do the same thing using quotes from the OT ?
So I am referring to what I call "hate speech" as compared to what people often call criticism of Islam as "hate speech."
And I don't necessarily believe it should be banned. I was just making a (apparently insensitive) comment contrasting my opinion of actual hate speech.
There is no room for making claims about God's will that incites violence or intolerance, tribal hatred, sexual discrimination, punishments, etc, that goes against human well-being, when bad about specific groups of people that are not backed by science and reason.
Are you happy when the Wesboro baptist church uses quotes from the OT to tell us that God hates homosexuals and they should be punished ? That is hate speech. It is using claims from a text that has zero proof came from an actual God. It's fucking rubbish !
RE: RE: RE: Back on subject why they are radicalized
to an American bomb? If you want to be taken seriously about discussing radicalization you have to acknowledge the role the US plays. While our intentions my be noble (or not), our policies play a role.
RE: Do they matter to a boy, 16, who just lost his family
to an American bomb? If you want to be taken seriously about discussing radicalization you have to acknowledge the role the US plays. While our intentions my be noble (or not), our policies play a role.
I don't have to acknowledge anything and if you read above, or recall what i wrote earlier, I already acknowledged other factors, including foreign policy, but I will happily be more specific and say that war and killing of Muslims makes the problems worse.
My entire argument can me summed up here and feel free to disagree, call me names, ignore me, or anything else you wish:
1. Beliefs and ideas made about claims of what God wants or does not want, leads to actions that correlate directly to them. example: reward in paradise for martyrdom during jihad.
2. Islam is held to a different standard by the west, to the detriment of human well-being, since criticism of it is re-labeled hate speech or similar, rather than protected under free speech. example: outcries and condemnation over Charlie Hebdo cartoons that led to murder.
you just walked all the way back from years of blanket shrill statements
So now you are saying you believe one thing in your core but say another to be provocative?
But other people cant do that...they cant even be in a nation where a few of them might have read the whole Quran without falling under your condemnation that they believed in a sub standard religion compared to other now more moderate religions ( like "peaceful Buddhism" ( big miss on that very incorrect claim in actual history. Go ask the millions of Buddhists who died in the last 100 years and the last 500 years for believing in the wrong type of Buddhism).
You know...the Quran that is traditionally written in the eastern Arabian dialect of Classical Arabic. That is no longer spoken or read so you have to learn it first. But there is another problem with your assertion that their beliefs are inferior. Muhammad would have spoken the western dialect of Classical Arabic originating from Mecca, so there is already an element of translation inherent in the Quran...and few even know how to read the wrong language of the earliest writings.
Then add that few humans do and say what they believe and then also believe different things under different influences seven times a day.
Then add that the variety of beliefs under Islam is suddenly wide ranging by your latest posts
Thats a whole lot of swirl.
But you are certain about it.
Bill-
Terms like "sub-standard" and "inferior" are not accurate to what I have written, though I don't blame you for using those terms based on some of my posts.
I would prefer words like "dangerous" "hateful" "intolerant" and "divisive."
And you can make all the claims you wish about Buddhism, but to make my claims (as I have tried to express them, sometimes poorly) "wrong" you would need to:
1. Show how the doctrine of Buddhism is used, if not word for word, then in spirit of what was conveyed by the doctrine, to justify the violence. Just saying that Buddhists committed crimes as priests, etc, does not fit the bill. There needs to be a correlation between what a supernatural deity commands or doesn't command, that leads to it.
2. And in doing this successfully, I still reserve the right to balance the claims made by the Buddhist doctrine, as a whole, vs. the Islamic doctrine. Meaning, both can be bad, but I would argue that Islam is much worse.
Let's start there, if you follow what I am seeking to argue. If not, please ask if you wish to do so.
"Worse" I mean it in terms of harmful claims about what God wants or doesn't want....NOT that any of the people who believe some or part of the claims are worse people because of it. To be worse people, one needs to actually act on the claims. There are plenty horrific atheists or close to it in history. (Pol Pot, Stalin)..
The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their
religion is still stuck in the middle ages. Christianity's interpretation of their religion has left most of that stuff behind. The Bible has all kinds of awful stuff in it and collectively folks have agreed to ignore those parts. Lots of muslims have done that too. The problem is that Islam on a whole hasn't been moderated to the degree that other religions have.
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
RE: The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their
religion is still stuck in the middle ages. Christianity's interpretation of their religion has left most of that stuff behind. The Bible has all kinds of awful stuff in it and collectively folks have agreed to ignore those parts. Lots of muslims have done that too. The problem is that Islam on a whole hasn't been moderated to the degree that other religions have.
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
I agree. And that is the next stage of the discussion, along with other things, if it were up to me to do this in a more organized format.
The complications with reform in Islam, the protections against criticism, etc, would also follow, in my view. But these are all secondary to the problems with getting people to acknowledge the 2 points I made above about beliefs/ideas leading to outcomes, and that Islam gets a pass in the arena of free speech criticism.
RE: The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Made multiple times worse by putting claims of religious supremacy, awarded by a supreme deity, and rewarded with promises of everlasting paradise. How do you argue with someone who truly believes this ? How do you reduce the conflicts ? What logic can you possibly use to argue with God ?
RE: RE: RE: The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Made multiple times worse by putting claims of religious supremacy, awarded by a supreme deity, and rewarded with promises of everlasting paradise. How do you argue with someone who truly believes this ? How do you reduce the conflicts ? What logic can you possibly use to argue with God ?
And how is that relevant to a Sunni-Sunni or Shia-Shia tribal conflict? They happen.
RE: RE: The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Made multiple times worse by putting claims of religious supremacy, awarded by a supreme deity, and rewarded with promises of everlasting paradise. How do you argue with someone who truly believes this ? How do you reduce the conflicts ? What logic can you possibly use to argue with God ?
And how is that relevant to a Sunni-Sunni or Shia-Shia tribal conflict? They happen.
There would be no conflict based on religious grounds. It would have to be based on other dividing factors like race, nationality, tribes (specifically). I would never argue that there wouldn't be other cultural factors, just that the God-granted arguments in the dogma and doctrine are a greater license for it.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their
There would be no conflict based on religious grounds.
That's precisely the point I'm making
Quote:
It would have to be based on other dividing factors like race, nationality, tribes (specifically). I would never argue that there wouldn't be other cultural factors, just that the God-granted arguments in the dogma and doctrine are a greater license for it.
And you swing right back to religion. It's NOT that simple.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their
There would be no conflict based on religious grounds.
That's precisely the point I'm making
Quote:
It would have to be based on other dividing factors like race, nationality, tribes (specifically). I would never argue that there wouldn't be other cultural factors, just that the God-granted arguments in the dogma and doctrine are a greater license for it.
And you swing right back to religion. It's NOT that simple.
What exactly is not simple? I guess I'm not following your point.
hard to avoid considering anything one might attribute to a political schism is based on the followers of a religion, but I grant you that it was a more political schism than a religious one. And originally not a difference in the doctrine of the religious aspects.
Perhaps you could clarify the point you are trying to make.
You have not done the homework to be on solid ground about religion or your thesis or any comparators so you can't keep asking people to feed you as the MC.
Sorry...imho it's your thesis that is all over the map, retreats and expands to keep you entertained, not researched and not an honorable discussion on your part.
You have not done the homework to be on solid ground about religion or your thesis or any comparators so you can't keep asking people to feed you as the MC.
Sorry...imho it's your thesis that is all over the map, retreats and expands to keep you entertained, not researched and not an honorable discussion on your part.
No one is learning and it feels weak.
Have a good summer. Go Giants
OK Bill. I tried to answer questions and accusations as they came up and clarify my argument later on to bring it back, but if you feel that way, that's cool with me.
The United States has admitted that at least 105 Iraqi civilians were killed in an air strike it carried out in Mosul in March.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40051640
RJ- Is purposefully targeting children and collateral damage the same thing ? Do intentions matter ?
Quote:
Imagine if you lost your family in this attack.
The United States has admitted that at least 105 Iraqi civilians were killed in an air strike it carried out in Mosul in March.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40051640
RJ- Is purposefully targeting children and collateral damage the same thing ? Do intentions matter ?
Do purported good intentions fix everything? Dont worry Muslim folks, when we accidentally kill civilians, it's with the best of intentions.
the violent and intolerant verses and claiming they are commands from a God that there is zero proof exists or that could have revealed the words,"
In answering your questions about "which Imams?"
Just like I would do the same of leaders of the Westboro Baptist Church, or leaders of the messianic ultra-orthodox Jewish movements who do the same thing using quotes from the OT ?
So I am referring to what I call "hate speech" as compared to what people often call criticism of Islam as "hate speech."
And I don't necessarily believe it should be banned. I was just making a (apparently insensitive) comment contrasting my opinion of actual hate speech.
There is no room for making claims about God's will that incites violence or intolerance, tribal hatred, sexual discrimination, punishments, etc, that goes against human well-being, when bad about specific groups of people that are not backed by science and reason.
Are you happy when the Wesboro baptist church uses quotes from the OT to tell us that God hates homosexuals and they should be punished ? That is hate speech. It is using claims from a text that has zero proof came from an actual God. It's fucking rubbish !
Quote:
In comment 13482127 Ron Johnson 30 said:
Quote:
Imagine if you lost your family in this attack.
The United States has admitted that at least 105 Iraqi civilians were killed in an air strike it carried out in Mosul in March.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40051640
RJ- Is purposefully targeting children and collateral damage the same thing ? Do intentions matter ?
Do purported good intentions fix everything? Dont worry Muslim folks, when we accidentally kill civilians, it's with the best of intentions.
No they do not fix everything, but they matter greatly. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Did I say they didn't matter ? Or that it is OK ?
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
I don't have to acknowledge anything and if you read above, or recall what i wrote earlier, I already acknowledged other factors, including foreign policy, but I will happily be more specific and say that war and killing of Muslims makes the problems worse.
My entire argument can me summed up here and feel free to disagree, call me names, ignore me, or anything else you wish:
1. Beliefs and ideas made about claims of what God wants or does not want, leads to actions that correlate directly to them. example: reward in paradise for martyrdom during jihad.
2. Islam is held to a different standard by the west, to the detriment of human well-being, since criticism of it is re-labeled hate speech or similar, rather than protected under free speech. example: outcries and condemnation over Charlie Hebdo cartoons that led to murder.
Thanks.
So now you are saying you believe one thing in your core but say another to be provocative?
But other people cant do that...they cant even be in a nation where a few of them might have read the whole Quran without falling under your condemnation that they believed in a sub standard religion compared to other now more moderate religions ( like "peaceful Buddhism" ( big miss on that very incorrect claim in actual history. Go ask the millions of Buddhists who died in the last 100 years and the last 500 years for believing in the wrong type of Buddhism).
You know...the Quran that is traditionally written in the eastern Arabian dialect of Classical Arabic. That is no longer spoken or read so you have to learn it first. But there is another problem with your assertion that their beliefs are inferior. Muhammad would have spoken the western dialect of Classical Arabic originating from Mecca, so there is already an element of translation inherent in the Quran...and few even know how to read the wrong language of the earliest writings.
Then add that few humans do and say what they believe and then also believe different things under different influences seven times a day.
Then add that the variety of beliefs under Islam is suddenly wide ranging by your latest posts
Thats a whole lot of swirl.
But you are certain about it.
Bill-
Terms like "sub-standard" and "inferior" are not accurate to what I have written, though I don't blame you for using those terms based on some of my posts.
I would prefer words like "dangerous" "hateful" "intolerant" and "divisive."
And you can make all the claims you wish about Buddhism, but to make my claims (as I have tried to express them, sometimes poorly) "wrong" you would need to:
1. Show how the doctrine of Buddhism is used, if not word for word, then in spirit of what was conveyed by the doctrine, to justify the violence. Just saying that Buddhists committed crimes as priests, etc, does not fit the bill. There needs to be a correlation between what a supernatural deity commands or doesn't command, that leads to it.
2. And in doing this successfully, I still reserve the right to balance the claims made by the Buddhist doctrine, as a whole, vs. the Islamic doctrine. Meaning, both can be bad, but I would argue that Islam is much worse.
Let's start there, if you follow what I am seeking to argue. If not, please ask if you wish to do so.
Thanks
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
I agree. And that is the next stage of the discussion, along with other things, if it were up to me to do this in a more organized format.
The complications with reform in Islam, the protections against criticism, etc, would also follow, in my view. But these are all secondary to the problems with getting people to acknowledge the 2 points I made above about beliefs/ideas leading to outcomes, and that Islam gets a pass in the arena of free speech criticism.
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Quote:
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Made multiple times worse by putting claims of religious supremacy, awarded by a supreme deity, and rewarded with promises of everlasting paradise. How do you argue with someone who truly believes this ? How do you reduce the conflicts ? What logic can you possibly use to argue with God ?
Quote:
In comment 13482375 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Made multiple times worse by putting claims of religious supremacy, awarded by a supreme deity, and rewarded with promises of everlasting paradise. How do you argue with someone who truly believes this ? How do you reduce the conflicts ? What logic can you possibly use to argue with God ?
And how is that relevant to a Sunni-Sunni or Shia-Shia tribal conflict? They happen.
Quote:
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
That is true. One could argue that being a sports fan is also irrational tribalism. But it's generally also less harmful than religion.
Quote:
In comment 13482434 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 13482375 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Made multiple times worse by putting claims of religious supremacy, awarded by a supreme deity, and rewarded with promises of everlasting paradise. How do you argue with someone who truly believes this ? How do you reduce the conflicts ? What logic can you possibly use to argue with God ?
And how is that relevant to a Sunni-Sunni or Shia-Shia tribal conflict? They happen.
There would be no conflict based on religious grounds. It would have to be based on other dividing factors like race, nationality, tribes (specifically). I would never argue that there wouldn't be other cultural factors, just that the God-granted arguments in the dogma and doctrine are a greater license for it.
There would be no conflict based on religious grounds.
That's precisely the point I'm making
And you swing right back to religion. It's NOT that simple.
Quote:
There would be no conflict based on religious grounds.
That's precisely the point I'm making
Quote:
It would have to be based on other dividing factors like race, nationality, tribes (specifically). I would never argue that there wouldn't be other cultural factors, just that the God-granted arguments in the dogma and doctrine are a greater license for it.
And you swing right back to religion. It's NOT that simple.
What exactly is not simple? I guess I'm not following your point.
Perhaps you could clarify the point you are trying to make.
Sorry...imho it's your thesis that is all over the map, retreats and expands to keep you entertained, not researched and not an honorable discussion on your part.
No one is learning and it feels weak.
Have a good summer. Go Giants
Sorry...imho it's your thesis that is all over the map, retreats and expands to keep you entertained, not researched and not an honorable discussion on your part.
No one is learning and it feels weak.
Have a good summer. Go Giants
OK Bill. I tried to answer questions and accusations as they came up and clarify my argument later on to bring it back, but if you feel that way, that's cool with me.
Have a great summer, as well.