Burning a man alive WTF

[thfcsteff]

I don't think that protective influence is great enough to sufficiently offset the negatives to invalidate my claim. The protective influences you talk about are present in other religions too with various sects, hardly unique for Islam.

In short I don't think I'm saying that all of Islam is the same by saying that Islam is the biggest threat. It's simply not the case. Islam is frequently referred to as one of the large religions, just like the other large religions there are many sects - often mutually exclusive, often with open or covert conflict between them. Essentially you're reading what I'm saying in a way it's not intended, that's you inferring stuff that was never implied. It's the same as if I say "Christianity...." or "Buddhism..." or "Hinduism..." and make whatever statement. Almost regardless of what I add after that people can claim that it's a generalization and not true for all sects. Which is a point worth remembering, but that doesn't invalidate the statements.

I have a very strong feeling we're just not going to agree on this, and probably we should just agree to disagree. If nothing else I think I've made my opinion abundantly clear and it seems you agree with that, but just not with the phrasing. We also agree that the claim "Islam is a religion of peace" is ridiculous, so that's something.

No more of a ridiculous claim than any religion saying similar. The 'peacefulness' of a religion can really only be measured by the fervency of it's followers when it comes to 'spreading the word'. When any religion's writings are taken at their grimmest, goriest and most literal extremes, then there will be little peace.

I think the most important thing right now is to try and separate moderate Islam from the extremist tossers of ISIS, which in itself will take some strong support of the moderate Muslim community...

 

[braineclipse]

We also agree that the claim "Islam is a religion of peace" is ridiculous, so that's something.

It's as ridiculous as saying Islam is the biggest threat, yes.

The fact that you can see that the statement, is flawed, yet not your own worries me though.[/QUOTE]

We agree, but our reasoning behind it is different. I thought that went without saying...

And again. I will ask who is fighting Isis on the ground.... Who is in the front line?

To be honest this a massively complex situation and religion actually plays a small part of it, apart from being used as a
Tool . But by setting up a them vs us senario, which you seem adamant in doing (with 2 billion people), despite me showing the very real and obvious flaws in you arguement/generalisation, who would appreciate your words? The Kurds (as oneof many majority Muslim groups fighting Isis) who are actually on the front line being killed by this fudgewits - or Isis themselves who want to make this a 'them vs us ' conflict? Think about that a little while.

Words a powerful. Think on those you use.

You return to ISIS and ISIS related stuff again and again. I've stated repeatedly that my position is not based on ISIS, not changed by ISIS and will probably not change by ISIS being defeated. I don't know why you keep returning to this, it's getting really tiring.

If you insist... Do you think the reasoning behind the resistance to ISIS on the ground is primarily a religious one? Or is this too a complex situation?

And I obviously agree with you on the so called real and obvious flaw in my argument. I've produced counter points with examples that I think are comparable that you have ignored. I have explained why I think my argument holds water from a logical point of view. You've re-stated your point and then claimed that the flaws in my argumentation are obvious.

I've stated repeatedly that I think the moderates are part of the problem. I don't know how to make this much clearer.

To an extent there is an us vs. them situation. With any theocratic, bigoted, expansionist, non-democratic, anti-freedom of speech or terrorist component of Islam at least. I've not said that this is creates an us vs. them situation with all 2 billion Muslims, that's again you reading stuff into what I've said. And I don't appreciate it. With the risk of being callous, words are powerful and you should think on those you use.

 

[braineclipse]

No more of a ridiculous claim than any religion saying similar. The 'peacefulness' of a religion can really only be measured by the fervency of it's followers when it comes to 'spreading the word'. When any religion's writings are taken at their grimmest, goriest and most literal extremes, then there will be little peace.

I think the most important thing right now is to try and separate moderate Islam from the extremist tossers of ISIS, which in itself will take some strong support of the moderate Muslim community...

I disagree. Particularly on "no more ridiculous". It might be that it can be said that calling any religion peaceful is a bit of a contradiction, and as such we agree. But to currently say that "Islam is a religion of peace" is as ridiculous as saying that "Buddhism is a religion of peace" doesn't make sense to me.

As a non-religious person I can only go by what the religious are claiming about their texts, what they take as truths and what they take as fiction. A much too high portion of Muslims seem to believe what I think is downright harmful.

Yes, surely the Muslim moderates are important. But I don't think all we need is their support, I think they themselves also need to change. And somehow I don't think not confronting them is part of the solution. I don't think it's been with Christianity where most of the way they've had to be dragged into modern society like a chain around humanity's ankles. Just about every positive social change we've had has been resisted enthusiastically with religious argumentation. Every truth claim from the religion that has contradicted science has been defended tooth and nail to the point of the ridiculous.

Back to Islam. Take the to us rather basic rights of equality between the sexes. A key issue I think you would agree, both in terms of protecting human dignity and of human progress. Discrimination of women harms society, prevents progress and promotes poverty, all direct dangers to peace I would claim. What is the current status on equality between the sexes in "Muslim countries"? Do you think the "moderates" (as in the majority, non-extremists, non-terrorists) have views you would agree with that are beneficial to society? Honestly I don't think we've even reached that point with Christianity in Europe, however for the most part those views have at least been marginalized to the point where the damage is much more limited.

To me part of the process has to be a move towards a point where criticism of religion is as accepted as criticism of any other idea.

 

[thfcsteff]

I have no problem criticizing any religion, trust me mate.

 

[DTA]

It's as ridiculous as saying Islam is the biggest threat, yes.

The fact that you can see that the statement, is flawed, yet not your own worries me though.

1)We agree, but our reasoning behind it is different. I thought that went without saying...



2)You return to ISIS and ISIS related stuff again and again. I've stated repeatedly that my position is not based on ISIS, not changed by ISIS and will probably not change by ISIS being defeated. I don't know why you keep returning to this, it's getting really tiring.

3)If you insist... Do you think the reasoning behind the resistance to ISIS on the ground is primarily a religious one? Or is this too a complex situation?

4) And I obviously agree with you on the so called real and obvious flaw in my argument.


5) I've produced counter points with examples that I think are comparable that you have ignored. I have explained why I think my argument holds water from a logical point of view. You've re-stated your point and then claimed that the flaws in my argumentation are obvious.

6)I've stated repeatedly that I think the moderates are part of the problem. I don't know how to make this much clearer.

7)To an extent there is an us vs. them situation. With any theocratic, bigoted, expansionist, non-democratic, anti-freedom of speech or terrorist component of Islam at least.

8)I've not said that this is creates an us vs. them situation with all 2 billion Muslims, that's again you reading stuff into what I've said. And I don't appreciate it. With the risk of being callous, words are powerful and you should think on those you use.[/QUOTE]

1) nah it needed to be said that you accept your use of 'Muslims are the biggest threat' as ridiculous, or at least as ridiculous as 'Islam is the religion of peace' which now have done, so thanks

2) but the main problem is Isis and groups with similar ideologies. If all these groups were removed, would Muslims still be the biggest threat? Do we need to look at how and why this groups were formed, to prevent them from forming again?

3)Are the people fighting Isis primarily on religious grounds?.. Nah they are fighting them because they seem like a manifestation of pure evil (and to be frank to protect their homes).But neither is Isis's primary motivation for their actions religious; it's expansionist,tribal etc.

4) that's a bit of a strange sentence.

5) you have asked me to compare to other religions and pick one more dangerous, sorry that's decisive, I won't play that game (I have said so to you, in other threads)

6) who are the moderates? Why/how are they part of the problem? What do they do? Are they one big group? What should they do better? How can they be part of the solution?

7) agreed so, I will ask the question again, who would be happier with your statement of 'muslims pose the biggest threat' the Kurds (majority Sunni Muslim) who are on the front lines fighting Isis? Or Isis who are are trying to foster a 'them vs us attitude'

8)It's not about me reading stuff in to what you have wrote, my problem here is in the language you use, if you were specific instead of general we would be in complete agreement.

Being general is part of the problem I feel.

 

[DTA]

I have no problem criticizing any religion, trust me mate.

Neither do I as long as the criticism is specific.

 

[DTA]

That is more to braine the you Steff

 

[braineclipse]

1)We agree, but our reasoning behind it is different. I thought that went without saying...



2)You return to ISIS and ISIS related stuff again and again. I've stated repeatedly that my position is not based on ISIS, not changed by ISIS and will probably not change by ISIS being defeated. I don't know why you keep returning to this, it's getting really tiring.

3)If you insist... Do you think the reasoning behind the resistance to ISIS on the ground is primarily a religious one? Or is this too a complex situation?

4) And I obviously agree with you on the so called real and obvious flaw in my argument.


5) I've produced counter points with examples that I think are comparable that you have ignored. I have explained why I think my argument holds water from a logical point of view. You've re-stated your point and then claimed that the flaws in my argumentation are obvious.

6)I've stated repeatedly that I think the moderates are part of the problem. I don't know how to make this much clearer.

7)To an extent there is an us vs. them situation. With any theocratic, bigoted, expansionist, non-democratic, anti-freedom of speech or terrorist component of Islam at least.

8)I've not said that this is creates an us vs. them situation with all 2 billion Muslims, that's again you reading stuff into what I've said. And I don't appreciate it. With the risk of being callous, words are powerful and you should think on those you use.

1) nah it needed to be said that you accept your use of 'Muslims are the biggest threat' as ridiculous, or at least as ridiculous as 'Islam is the religion of peace' which now have done, so thanks

2) but the main problem is Isis and groups with similar ideologies. If all these groups were removed, would Muslims still be the biggest threat? Do we need to look at how and why this groups were formed, to prevent them from forming again?

3)Are the people fighting Isis primarily on religious grounds?.. Nah they are fighting them because they seem like a manifestation of pure evil (and to be frank to protect their homes).But neither is Isis's primary motivation for their actions religious; it's expansionist,tribal etc.

4) that's a bit of a strange sentence.

5) you have asked me to compare to other religions and pick one more dangerous, sorry that's decisive, I won't play that game (I have said so to you, in other threads)

6) who are the moderates? Why/how are they part of the problem? What do they do? Are they one big group? What should they do better? How can they be part of the solution?

7) agreed so, I will ask the question again, who would be happier with your statement of 'muslims pose the biggest threat' the Kurds (majority Sunni Muslim) who are on the front lines fighting Isis? Or Isis who are are trying to foster a 'them vs us attitude'

8)It's not about me reading stuff in to what you have wrote, my problem here is in the language you use, if you were specific instead of general we would be in complete agreement.

Being general is part of the problem I feel.[/QUOTE]

Read your post a couple of days ago. Really couldn't understand how you could say what you did in your first point. Tried reading it now, still no idea. If you really think I said that we're obviously just speaking past each other and I have no wish to continue this discussion.

 

[DTA]

1) nah it needed to be said that you accept your use of 'Muslims are the biggest threat' as ridiculous, or at least as ridiculous as 'Islam is the religion of peace' which now have done, so thanks

2) but the main problem is Isis and groups with similar ideologies. If all these groups were removed, would Muslims still be the biggest threat? Do we need to look at how and why this groups were formed, to prevent them from forming again?

3)Are the people fighting Isis primarily on religious grounds?.. Nah they are fighting them because they seem like a manifestation of pure evil (and to be frank to protect their homes).But neither is Isis's primary motivation for their actions religious; it's expansionist,tribal etc.

4) that's a bit of a strange sentence.

5) you have asked me to compare to other religions and pick one more dangerous, sorry that's decisive, I won't play that game (I have said so to you, in other threads)

6) who are the moderates? Why/how are they part of the problem? What do they do? Are they one big group? What should they do better? How can they be part of the solution?

7) agreed so, I will ask the question again, who would be happier with your statement of 'muslims pose the biggest threat' the Kurds (majority Sunni Muslim) who are on the front lines fighting Isis? Or Isis who are are trying to foster a 'them vs us attitude'

8)It's not about me reading stuff in to what you have wrote, my problem here is in the language you use, if you were specific instead of general we would be in complete agreement.

Being general is part of the problem I feel.

Read your post a couple of days ago. Really couldn't understand how you could say what you did in your first point. Tried reading it now, still no idea. If you really think I said that we're obviously just speaking past each other and I have no wish to continue this discussion.[/QUOTE]

I thought you were saying that both statements are equally ridiculous. If I misread that, sorry it was not my intention. I would be interested to hear your replies to my other points, but understand if you would rather not.

Back to the OP, I have not watched the video, and I really don't want to, pretty much everything that Isis does disgusts me. Not really sure how they rose to power so quickly, or how to defeat them, but barbarism like that needs to be defeated, both militarily and ideologically.

But how that would be done.... ?