(August 15, 2016 at 7:43 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(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.

I'm not saying scriptures don't enable or motivate violence. But again, sometimes that depends on how adherents interpret the scriptures. With Islam in particular, we are talking about a book that suffers from an utter lack of clear context, so when you read some of the verses in the Qur'an, it's just not clear what context they're supposed to be embedded in. Add to that verses and surahs that just seem to contradict each other, and it's not obvious at all what is the on true interpretation (if there is any). For example, you have the violence verses vs. peace verses in that book. Or compulsion vs. no compulsion verses. Or other verses that just don't seem to be in harmony with each other. So what exactly is the Muslim supposed to follow and apply exactly? Well, like I said before, it's going to depend on interpretation and selective application of the verses.

Unfortunately, the Muslim leadership in some of the environments resort to a more aggressive approach because, well, it's just suitable for their political view. So this is more a fault with the state, and it's more influenced by certain political ideologies than an absolute literal and objective interpretation of a religious book that cannot be objectively interpreted anyway on the whole.

(August 15, 2016 at 8:02 pm)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote: 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.

So pretty much ad hominem attack. You won't address (or even listen to) what he said, so you'll attack his character instead.

(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.

The Qu'ran is just a poorly remembered copy of the bible. Muhammad as a person though, is much much much worse then the Jesus Christ character. It's easier to put a more positive liberal spin on Christianity then it is on Islam.

(August 15, 2016 at 11:24 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(August 15, 2016 at 7:43 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: 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.

I'm not saying scriptures don't enable or motivate violence. But again, sometimes that depends on how adherents interpret the scriptures. With Islam in particular, we are talking about a book that suffers from an utter lack of clear context, so when you read some of the verses in the Qur'an, it's just not clear what context they're supposed to be embedded in. Add to that verses and surahs that just seem to contradict each other, and it's not obvious at all what is the on true interpretation (if there is any). For example, you have the violence verses vs. peace verses in that book. Or compulsion vs. no compulsion verses. Or other verses that just don't seem to be in harmony with each other. So what exactly is the Muslim supposed to follow and apply exactly? Well, like I said before, it's going to depend on interpretation and selective application of the verses.

Unfortunately, the Muslim leadership in some of the environments resort to a more aggressive approach because, well, it's just suitable for their political view. So this is more a fault with the state, and it's more influenced by certain political ideologies than an absolute literal and objective interpretation of a religious book that cannot be objectively interpreted anyway on the whole.

The Qu'ran can be interpreted a lot of different ways, and indeed it is. It's pretty hard to put a positive spin on the figure of Muhammad though, especially when he's held to be a moral example to live by, and indeed that no prophet can even come after him and correct the shitty things that he said and did. Islam is a stagnant religion in that regard. Islam is very explicit that Muhammad is the greatest and last of the prophets. I have a hard time seeing a reformation in it's immediate future.

(August 14, 2016 at 11:59 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Which Muslim dominated country doesn't have a problem with the treatment of women? There are some that are better then others, but yeah, they all have sexism problems. Don't know what that has to do with FGM, nor did I bring it up. I think the argument that 'Christians and Jews are bad too' doesn't have much bearing on Islam. So what? It's like someone saying that Jeffery Dahlmer was a bad person and someone else saying 'Ted Bundy was a bad person too' So what? Islam blows.

I'm not saying that Islam has an influence on the culture out of speculation. I'm pretty familiar with the early history of Islam and how it influenced the culture. Pretty familiar with the spread of Islam to southeast Asia and the cultural changes that took place there. Pretty familiar with the spread of Islam to west Africa and India. You don't have to speculate, you can read about it. You can also ask Muslims, most of whom will say their religion is the number one identifying factor about themselves, not their culture. Who will tell you that Islam is a cross cultural religion. So you don't have to speculate.

My favorite:













Tcho'o Tcho'o Tcho'o (تشؤ تشؤ تشؤ), slapping women and raping Marnie; sucks !!! Muslims are sooooo evil !!!
Oh...those in the videos are not Muslims??

Oh...now shit !! 

Now I'm getting serious..

Men -everywhere- have issues with women. And women too have the same feelings towards men; here, this book is good:

https://www.amazon.com/Men-Mars-Women-Ve...+from+mars

In the MIDDLE EAST though; in MIDDLE EASTERN SOCIETIES, women face more of a judging mentality for pure cultural reasons. 
It's not Islam; it's culture.

Let me prove it.
Is face veil (Niqab) an Islamic or Arabian & Byzantine outfit?



With a yes or no, please, and beware of yes, for reasons I shall cite in my next comment.

"Which Muslim dominated country doesn't have a problem with the treatment of women? "

Probably somewhere like Albania. They want to join the EU (so they need good human rights) and the Communist era did a good job of taming religion. Radical Mosques were shut down and beards were banned, etc. The Ottomans used the Saqaliba to spread the religion throughout the Balkans; they used to capture men from the area and turn them into Jannissarries and such.

If a person from the Ummah, as I do, takes the Quran at face value then they will be able to justify abusing their fellow humans. Culture can reduce the influence the Quran has in society. Then it also comes down to which Fiqh or whether there is any Sharia at all.

(August 14, 2016 at 11:16 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: The problem with 'it's a cultural thing' is that you see similar problems across the Muslim world, which extends to many different cultures. All of them have problems with the oppression of women, all of them have problems with the repression of free speech, all of them have theocratic elements. To try to seperate culture from religion is to ignore that Islam have a profound and deep effect on the culture itself and that in the middle east especially, the culture stems from Islam as much as Islam stems from the culture.

I'll never understand left wing people like Cenk defending an extreme right wing ideology like Islam.

Just because someone doesn't cuss like Bill Maher does not mean they advocate religious violence. That is bullshit. I do think Ben is too sensitive but when you reach the level of scapegoating demagoguery like Trump that is unacceptable.

(August 15, 2016 at 11:27 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(August 15, 2016 at 8:02 pm)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote: 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.

So pretty much ad hominem attack. You won't address (or even listen to) what he said, so you'll attack his character instead.

You're on Cenk's "side" in that debate?


I'm really sorry for saying this, but that makes you a complete idiot. I'm serious.

(August 15, 2016 at 1:14 am)Minimalist Wrote: I have no use for any dumb motherfucker who thinks that his invisible friend says it is okay to kill people.

Fuck all theists.

No no no no, "Fuck bad ideas", it still remains that all 7 billion humans are still just that. My mom believes still, and you will never get me to say that about her.

Here is a one on one between Cenk and Harris. Lengthy but more in depth. I think Harris holds his own in this one :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU