(August 15, 2016 at 4:36 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(August 15, 2016 at 4:29 pm)Irrational Wrote: If true, then it's a percentage of Islamic terrorism. Not of Muslims overall.

So what point are you trying to make exactly?

That Islam is inherently more dangerous to it's own adherents than any other religion.

It also has not gone through a reformation like the others.

Still treating Islam as a unitary thing.

And plus, perhaps it's because Muslim terrorism tends to happen where other Muslims tend to reside.

(August 15, 2016 at 4:54 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(August 15, 2016 at 4:36 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: That Islam is inherently more dangerous to it's own adherents than any other religion.

It also has not gone through a reformation like the others.

Still treating Islam as a unitary thing.

Nope, as a bell-curve that leans toward the violent side of human expression....which is repeatedly codified in the Quran and the example of Muhammad.

But not all right? Goodness no, not all...

(August 15, 2016 at 4:57 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(August 15, 2016 at 4:54 pm)Irrational Wrote: Still treating Islam as a unitary thing.

Nope, as a bell-curve that leans toward the violent side of human expression....which is repeatedly codified in the Quran and the example of Muhammad.

But not all right? Goodness no, not all...

Certainly not most.

(August 15, 2016 at 4:59 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(August 15, 2016 at 4:57 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Nope, as a bell-curve that leans toward the violent side of human expression....which is repeatedly codified in the Quran and the example of Muhammad.

But not all right? Goodness no, not all...

Certainly not most.

Yep, most of the food in the buffet is not poisonous (not sure which)...but I wouldn't touch the koolaid.

(August 15, 2016 at 5:06 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(August 15, 2016 at 4:59 pm)Irrational Wrote: Certainly not most.

Yep, most of the food in the buffet is not poisonous (not sure which)...but I wouldn't touch the koolaid.

Not sure which? That sounds like a bigoted thing to say about Muslims.

(August 15, 2016 at 5:07 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(August 15, 2016 at 5:06 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Yep, most of the food in the buffet is not poisonous (not sure which)...but I wouldn't touch the koolaid.

Not sure which? That sounds like a bigoted thing to say about Muslims.

Individuals carry out the attacks but the poison is in the Quranic root and manifests in the fruit of more than one branch of Islam.

Ever read about the largest genocide in history of the Hindus in India by invading Muslims?

https://sites.google.com/site/breivikman.../book-1/09

(August 15, 2016 at 5:22 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Individuals carry out the attacks but the poison is in the Quranic root and manifests in the fruit of more than one branch of Islam.

Would you be surprised if I don't take the wisdom of the competing franchise not too seriously? A good hard look at the bible is in order. Both books. If read with an open mind, both the Quran and the bible are on an equally atrocious level. So the only remaining question is what people make of it. And since, in the case of many muslim countries, we're talking about borderline failed states, it's rather obvious why all of this happens.

But it's not as if christians or jews, when radicalised, would be any better. There's only a very thin coat of societal norms and laws preventing them from acting on their vile religious instincts. Sometimes the coat breaks and the very same uglyness is reveiled.

(August 15, 2016 at 4:23 pm)Irrational Wrote: Well, aside from the chart I just referred to in previous post, he mentioned FGM as an example to illustrate the point that culture irrespective of religion can play a significant role in fostering barbaric "ideals" and made some other points that escape my mind at the moment. But the overall point is that you can't make generalizations about the Muslim population based on a bad handling of statistics or without consideration of the role of culture in triggering certain practices/attitudes or of the multiple different ways in which religious doctrines are interpreted (leading to different ways of applying beliefs).

I am not making generalisations, and I don't think a correct understanding of what Harris says, can lead to anyone making such generalisations.

Neither I, nor Harris ever said that Islam is the only source for terrorism. The point is, when the holy text they believe is the exact word of their god, is full of barbaric ideas, it allows for an easy route to acting on such bad ideas. Yes, no question, it also takes religious leaders, and the right cultural milieu, to get followers to act. But to say that the Koran is not also a big motivator, is being a bit naive.

Quote:As an example, China has a horrible human rights record toward Tibetans. So where are all the Tibetan terrorists? Might some of the differences be the religious text they adhere to?

Sure, that's possible. Or rather their interpretation of it. Physical environment may play a role as well, I don't know. At the end of the day, it's so many multiple factors that one can't just assert religion is a major contributor to all these barbarisms.[/quote]

The problem is, the barbaric, violent passages DO exist in the Koran. The fact that the majority or Muslims ignore them, is a very good thing.

Quote:And terrorism itself has been committed by various nonMuslims anyway throughout history of mankind, even in modern days.

Never said any different.

I am not at all saying that there is no other motivation, besides religion, for terrorism. But this particular conversation is concerning the motivation behind Islamic terrorism.

You can't ignore the fact that many of the 19 September 11 hijackers were not poor, downtrodden, persecuted, men mistreated by Western civilisation.

Mohamed Atta studied architecture at Cairo University, graduating in 1990, and continued his studies in Hamburg, Germany at the Technical University of Hamburg.

Wail al-Shehri was a school teacher.

Satam al-Suqami was a law student.

Khalid al-Mihdhar was from a prominent and rich family.

Majed Moqed was law student.

Ziad Jarrah had a wealthy and secular upbringing.

Ahmed al-Nami was a college student from a upper middle class family.

It seems to do what these men did, much of their motivation has to come from their religious beliefs.

How anybody could watch that exchange and see Ben Affleck as anything other than a blustering bully is beyond me. Sam Harris opens the discussion by talking about how liberals are unwilling to stand up to Islamic theocracy (key word, specifying that he is talking about extremists, not every day Muslims). Ben Affleck has an emotional meltdown, screaming "racist" at Harris, thus proving Harris' point. You can't write this stuff, though if I did, I'd want a better actor to play the role. 

I didn't watch what Cenk had to say. I stopped watching that bloated regressive Islamophile had to say about anything a long time ago.

(August 15, 2016 at 5:39 pm)abaris Wrote:

(August 15, 2016 at 5:22 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Individuals carry out the attacks but the poison is in the Quranic root and manifests in the fruit of more than one branch of Islam.

Would you be surprised if I don't take the wisdom of the competing franchise not too seriously? A good hard look at the bible is in order. Both books. If read with an open mind, both the Quran and the bible are on an equally atrocious level. So the only remaining question is what people make of it. And since, in the case of many muslim countries, we're talking about borderline failed states, it's rather obvious why all of this happens.

But it's not as if christians or jews, when radicalised, would be any better. There's only a very thin coat of societal norms and laws preventing them from acting on their vile religious instincts. Sometimes the coat breaks and the very same uglyness is reveiled.

"...but the Christians..." (Islamophilic cliche #267)


This is called the Tu Quoque fallacy. It's the last line of defense for those who have none. Every parent knows this fallacy as "C'mon mom/dad, get off my back, everybody does it." Every parent knows why this argument can't be allowed to stand. It breaks down accountability, diffuses responsibility and degrades standards by normalizing bad behavior. One person's wrong doing does not excuse another's. 

Like most uses of the Tu Quoque fallacy as a last defense, it draws on false comparisons. Besides the fact that we oppose Christian theocracy, so I'm not even sure what your point is in bringing them up, it's clear that there is both more of a push for that in Islam and that the outcome will be worse. Current surveys suggest that 2/3rds of Muslims support Sharia Law whereas Christian Dominionism is so obscure that even among fundies they represent a tiny minority. Why is that? 

For all it's flaws, and they are quite numerous, Christianity does have two things that enable it to adapt to a free and modern society:

1. Their kingdom is in a "higher place" so render unto Caesar and all that. 
2. The five magic words "Jesus died to fulfill that" are a huge escape hatch for the moderate that allows them to essentially make Christianity into whatever they want it to be.

Islam doesn't have either characteristic in its theology. It was started by a warlord, not an other-worldly end-times doom crier. It's Caliphate is to be brought to this world and there is no escape hatch for the moderate aside from simply ignoring what's written in the scriptures. 

The outcome, once theocracy is established, isn't even close to being comparable. Much outrage was generated, and rightly so, about Christian-majority Uganda's attempt to implement a "kill the gays" law. There are 10 countries that actually HAVE kill-the-gays laws on the books. Coincidentally, they all happen to be majority Muslim. 

There are also 13 countries that have "kill the atheists" laws on the books. They all happen to be majority Muslim.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. I could go on and on about objective measures that Islam, certainly as it is practiced today, is clearly a more dangerous religion. Christianity is obnoxious but Islam is worse.