(December 13, 2015 at 2:15 am)Irrational Wrote:

(December 13, 2015 at 2:12 am)Amine Wrote: Honestly, it makes it seem like you are accusing someone of being a racist. I think that's a bad habit that has really turned people off to the left. And the people you would want to say that to are riding around in pickup trucks with confederate flags on them, not hanging out on an atheist forum.

At least one member here has already made it clear his bigotry towards all Muslims, so I'm not making any shit up. Look through the thread and see for yourself.

Some atheists are bigots, get over it.

I'm not going through 250 posts

So like, would this person just despise someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali even though she is an ex-Muslim?

(December 13, 2015 at 2:15 am)Irrational Wrote:

(December 13, 2015 at 2:12 am)Amine Wrote: Honestly, it makes it seem like you are accusing someone of being a racist. I think that's a bad habit that has really turned people off to the left. And the people you would want to say that to are riding around in pickup trucks with confederate flags on them, not hanging out on an atheist forum.

At least one member here has already made it clear his bigotry towards all Muslims, so I'm not making any shit up. Look through the thread and see for yourself.

Some atheists are bigots, get over it.

All religious people are supposed to be bigots per their religious doctrines.

I don't think I have been found defending Islam, now individual Muslims I will defend because the vast majority are nice people. Just like the vast majority of Christians are nice people. I know its easy to group people together, but you should judge people by their own actions. just because some of the true believers are arseholes does not mean that if they are a muslim they are an arsehole. It matters not that their holy text says this or that, what matters is what people actually do. If you look at the bible it is horrific in it's rules, but the majority of Christians do not follow these because they are better than the text, this holds just as true for the majority of muslims.
It's the true believers you need to watch out for.

(December 13, 2015 at 1:25 am)Irrational Wrote:

(December 13, 2015 at 1:04 am)Amine Wrote: I don't know what the difference is between shitting on its doctrines and harming good Muslims with hateful words. What about saying they idiotically believe in some blood thirsty imaginary friend cooked up by a 7th century barbarian who raped a 9 year old?

Sure, say that. But look at your motive as to why you would take the time to say that about them. Is there some hidden agenda there as well against Muslims themselves? Or is it really to do with seeing Muhammad as a barbarian? If so, why not talk that way about Jews as well?

One post back, you were saying "be real about it". Reality doesn't always fit this equal opportunity offender ideology. Then again, when it's Muslims and not Jews who are shooting people, blowing them up, maiming them, and beheading them all over the world, then why should we bother addressing Judaism too when we discuss how bad Islam is? When the issue at hand isn't physical violence, but the brilliant person I met who was recently living on the street because her Brooklyn Haredi clan dispossessed her of everything (her children too) for being too smart for them, that's when I'll be talking about how bad Judaism is. No hidden, and hateful agenda here - just reality.

Maybe the violence which Muslims commit in the name of Allah is not really supported by the koran. Given this, they still do it in the name of the god of Islam. They may not like Western intervention in the ME, but Muslims are not linked by nationality nor race - some very white, suburban boys have left America to join ISIS. I can't stand Orthodox Jewish leaders for the way they completely lord over and waste the lives of their followers, but at least there isn't much phyisical violence, despite the fact that their oldest holy book would inspire at least as much. Then again, the promise of 72 virgins in the afterlife is a hell of a motivator, if the koran actually does contain that.

Also, there is a massive difference between "WWJD" and "WWMD". I'm not sure Christianity doesn't have a capacity to be reformed that Islam simply lacks. Jesus would never have called for the crusades. That was an actual case of religious people not really following their religion. Muhammad, on the other hand, was a guy who went around committing atrocities. The Muslims who don't spread Islam by the sword are the ones not really following their religion.

Once again, far too many people are stuck on labels. "Religion" as a human invented construct, in all it's forms in our species history is a problematic concept. While it can succeed as a group it also sets up divisions against outside groups and even within the same religion. So when we say we attack Islam it is not the individual but the concept especially taken to a political level. The west is only better in the sense we have had a longer history on tapping down theocracy. But the underpinnings of theocracy even in the west are still there. It is why our right wing still makes attempts at bible based bigotry, sexism and homophobia.

I can and will defend individuals who are non violent and still not agree with the concept of "religion" as an idea.

I believe I can flyyyyyyyyyy I believe I can touch the skyyyyyyyyyyyy

(December 13, 2015 at 1:46 pm)Amine Wrote: Jesus would never have called for the crusades.

This the same Jesus who said he didn't come to bring peace, but the sword?

(December 13, 2015 at 2:35 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 13, 2015 at 1:46 pm)Amine Wrote: Jesus would never have called for the crusades.

This the same Jesus who said he didn't come to bring peace, but the sword?

That is the kind of equivocation people need to stop committing. This is a very indirect call to violence at best. Really, it is more metaphorical, as he goes on to explain this "sword" will cause divisions in relationships.

The two simply do not compare. To do so is disingenuous. Jesus didn't go around raping children and beheading people. Yes, one time he metaphorically used a sword as an example. He tended to do that sort of thing. And then he let himself get crucified. Big difference. Might have something to do with the way things look in the world today.

(December 13, 2015 at 1:46 pm)Amine Wrote: Also, there is a massive difference between "WWJD" and "WWMD". I'm not sure Christianity doesn't have a capacity to be reformed that Islam simply lacks. Jesus would never have called for the crusades. That was an actual case of religious people not really following their religion. Muhammad, on the other hand, was a guy who went around committing atrocities. The Muslims who don't spread Islam by the sword are the ones not really following their religion.

And by which evidence did you go, exactly ?
the same sources that Sunnies and Shia use to justify their crimes ?

I mean where can you run from this verse in the Quran :

( Sura 2 Verse 256 )   There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

I mean, this is the doctrine and constitution of Mohammed; how did he expand religion by the sword if his own constitution included this ?

Please, don't throw the acts of Sunnies and Shia on Mohammed. The Islamic conquests took place after Mohammed's death.

Though, I do agree with you on that Jesus would never call for crusades, He too -Jesus- believed that there shall be no compulsion in the acceptance of the religion.