(December 29, 2014 at 12:12 pm)abaris Wrote: What I'm violently opposed though, is the all muslims are the same rhetoric. That's why I don't care much for Sam Harris, just to give one example. I also saw some threads on this very board that nearly made me lose my lunch. Proposing things like forcibly taking away children from muslim parents or confining all muslims within certain areas and bomb them off and on for good measure is straight from the handbook of how to become a good nazi. That's on the same wavelength as violent antisemitism and has nothing to do with opposing religion.

Has Sam Harris said or written such things? Even on the Bill Mahar show, Sam opened the discussion with "Islamic Theocracy" which does focus on the radicals. Affleck immediately became red with rage and tried to silence him with charges of "racism" and "bigotry", only proving Sam Harris correct.

Sam Harris' point is that moderates are just watered down religious people that don't represent what the religion teaches. They give cover to the extremists by validating the claim of divine revelation for their scriptures. They may be nice people but they're not who we're talking about when we discuss what a religion is about.

That's my point as well. The radicals represent a religion.

---

(December 29, 2014 at 12:44 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(December 29, 2014 at 11:31 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: New Rule for Evaluating a Religion's Teachings:
For any religion, show me your radicals and I'll show you what your religion teaches.

Given the situation you described, how is this rule helpful?

Because the rallying cry for the coexist crowd is, "What about the moderates? Your painting with a broad brush."

The new rule makes it clear that while moderates may be nice people, they don't represent what their religion really teaches.

(December 29, 2014 at 12:51 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Has Sam Harris said or written such things? Even on the Bill Mahar show, Sam opened the discussion with "Islamic Theocracy" which does focus on the radicals. Affleck immediately became red with rage and tried to silence him with charges of "racism" and "bigotry", only proving Sam Harris correct.

If you read my post correctly, I pointed out that users of this very board have written such things, not Harris. Sam Harris generalises and he doubled down on it in an interview he gave Cenk Uigur from the Young Turks. I watched it, uncut, three hours long in hopes he might correct the "All muslims" thing, which he didn't.

(December 29, 2014 at 12:59 pm)abaris Wrote: If you read my post correctly, I pointed out that users of this very board have written such things, not Harris.

Fair enough.

Quote:Sam Harris generalises and he doubled down on it in an interview he gave Cenk Uigur from the Young Turks. I watched it, uncut, three hours long in hopes he might correct the "All muslims" thing, which he didn't.

I'm not an expert on everything Sam Harris has ever written or said. The message from Harris as I understand it is that beliefs effect our actions. As we believe, so we will act. This seems to be the core message in everything of his that I have read or heard.

Since as you believe is how you will act, it follows that some beliefs might be very dangerous.

Different religious people believe different things, no question. But when we evaluate whether or not a specific religion is dangerous, we need to examine the religion itself and what its teachings are. If people really believe religion X, what kind of behavior can we expect?

I hold that moderates are barely relevant to that discussion if they are at all. It's the radicals that take a religion's teachings to heart and center their lives and actions around it. Moderates take a more nuanced approach, interpreting their scriptures and other sources abstractly, often frankly concluding what they already believe anyway, or at the very least being heavily influenced by their own conscience and modern sensibilities. Radicals are less likely to be moved to moderate their beliefs by modern science or modern sensibilities, sticking to their religious beliefs without such compromise.

Show me the radicals and I'll show you the religion.

(December 29, 2014 at 1:40 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Show me the radicals and I'll show you the religion.

Yes, but not the people. And that's the issue at hand. A shepard in Anatolia doesn't hold the same views as an ISIS activist. The same way some clerk in some American shop doesn't associate with the Southern Baptists or soem jew praying in a synagogue doesn't automatically go out on the streets to spit on little girls for their immodesty.

It's the painting with a broad brush attitude that inflames me. Not everyone is automatically violent and somehow subhuman just because they follow a certain religion.

I pretty much totally agree with this. Moderates are better people, but are utter failures as far as their religion goes. The radicals are the ones taking it seriously.

If the moderates want to really show it's "nothing to do with them" they need to stop associating with the very book(s) causing the problem. Until they do that, as far as I'm concerned, they are validating it.

I guess polarisation will continue to the point where the moderates leave altogether, and the fundamentalists retreat into their impenetrable lairs of stupidity. What will happen at that point, I'm not too sure. But they will stand out as the crazy idiots they are much more so than today.

---

Hopefully the fundies will die out and not be replaced in as many numbers.

(December 29, 2014 at 2:08 pm)robvalue Wrote: If the moderates want to really show it's "nothing to do with them" they need to stop associating with the very book(s) causing the problem. Until they do that, as far as I'm concerned, they are validating it.

Noone seems to get it. As long as every muslim is bashed just because they are muslims, that's actually an alliance between christian nuts and atheists. What's more it's pretty much the same rhetoric used that has been used some 80 years ago by the Nazis. Not only here, in some cases, but in the public discussion too. It's something to puke over, even more so, since I have yet to see the same hatred directed against all christians or all jews. I've not seen anyone suggesting to take away the children of christian radicals or jewish radicals, nor have I seen the suggestion of confining them to some remote reservates to bomb them off and on and starve them by imposing import sanctions.

Yes, the religion is shit, the radicals are shit, but I'm not going to join a pitchfork posse. Being the descendent of holocaust survivors, I certainly won't stand for something like the above.

I wasn't suggesting pitchforking anyone. I just hate the hypocrisy of it all. And I feel just as angry towards christian moderates, or any other moderates that are helping to shield the fundamentalist nutcases. I don't condone picking on people just because, it's only that Islam is the one causing the most harm in the here and now. There's no obligation for people to stay Muslim (except when they are being forced to of course). I'm not suggesting we do anything to them, of course not. I'm not really sure what you thought I was suggesting, but I apologize if I upset you. I just don't believe someone when they say they're "nothing to do with something" when they continue to pour their support into it.

I want all moderates to take responsibility and either form their own group, or leave altogether. But that's just what I want. I'm not signing up a posse.

(December 29, 2014 at 2:32 pm)robvalue Wrote: I wasn't suggesting pitchforking anyone. I just hate the hypocrisy of it all. And I feel just as angry towards christian moderates, or any other moderates that are helping to shield the fundamentalist nutcases. I don't condone picking on people just because, it's only that Islam is the one causing the most harm in the here and now. There's no obligation for people to stay Muslim. I'm not suggesting we do anything to them, of course not. I'm not really sure what you thought I was suggesting, but I apologize if I upset you. I just don't believe someone when they say they're "nothing to do with something" when they continue to pour their support into it.

Have you actually read the posts I mentioned? Have you observed the "discussion"? Can you honestly say, you agree to or tolerate something like that? Do you think, UKIP, or to speak of my own country, the FPOE, have something veluable to add to this discussion?

That's what it boils down to. They're all the same, since they have the freedom to leave their religion. Maybe take a look at the real world and what it means in certain regions to leave their religion. It may be bad in America, but that's nothing compared to what someone faces in other countries.

OK sorry I have upset you. Obviously we disagree a lot about this. I think we should leave it at that.

I hate it just as much how people who support the churches which are a pedophile ring, I don't understand why they would do that.

I'm not blaming people or having a massive go at them, I am saying I am not convinced by their words, nothing more. I'm not calling for action. I think I'm entitled to my assessment of their words.

The question remains, what does that Anatolian shepherd DO when confronted with some raving mullah? What we have seen is that generally he does nothing.

"Qui tacit consentire videtur" is a legal maxim meaning he who remains silent consents.


http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/...-polls.htm

Quote:Have you heard that Islam is a peaceful religion because most Muslims live peacefully and that only a "tiny minority of extremists" practice violence? That's like saying that White supremacy must be perfectly fine since only a tiny minority of racists ever hurt anyone. Neither does it explain why religious violence is largely endemic to Islam, despite the tremendous persecution of religious minorities in Muslim countries.

But in the West the white supremacists are actively opposed. That is the piece that is missing in your defense of islam.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...a-law.html

A minority? Yes. But hardly a small one.