(September 30, 2010 at 9:20 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(September 30, 2010 at 7:58 am)A Theist Wrote: Until now, your posts "seemed" to me, that you were dismissing the Islamic terrorist threat.
These are the events as they unfolded on the morning of 9-11...

For the second time, the part about the "rabid dog" that's still running free flew over your head?

All religions that preach a holy struggle against an imaginary devil, that imagine a horrifying "Hell" to save souls for all eternity from, are inherently dangerous. Terrorists, inquisitors, crusaders, jihadis, etc are all the inevitable result of the continued existence of these false, terrifying ideas of how the universe works.

Bottom line: It's not just Islam that's the problem. It's Islamo-Christianity.

Would the discussion of Islamic terrorism been more valid had an atheist raised the issue? Are you saying that I don't have the right to raise concerns about terrorist attacks by Muslims because there's violence in Christian history? What if you and I were both the victims of a terrorist attack, wouldn't I be just as affected as you? I say your anti christian sentiment is causing you to down play the Islamic terror threat. What about the terrorism that has come from your side?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Und...anization)

(October 1, 2010 at 5:53 am)A Theist Wrote: [quote='DeistPaladin' pid='96633' dateline='1285852847']
[quote='A Theist' pid='96625' dateline='1285847905']
I say your anti christian sentiment is causing you to down play the Islamic terror threat. What about the terrorism that has come from your side?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Und...anization)

I like you, you're funny.

(October 1, 2010 at 6:10 am)Zen Badger Wrote: I like you, you're funny.

Thanks mate.

There is no such thing as islamic terrorism - those are just unconnected words thrown together to reinforce a construct. You could do the same with atheist terrorism if you wanted, the Red Army Faction come to mind. The big religions and the big ideologies don't terrorise, people do, usually in small, alienated groups. To defend itself a society must either tackle the alienation politically (the Northern Ireland approach - eventually) or determine to defend itself directly against individual terrorists and put society beyond harm when they are caught. Extending the blame for the actions of 20-30 people to another 1.6 billion stretches credibility, to say the least. We also have to ask what is terrorism? Does the bombing and killing of civilians in Afghanistan count? If you were on the receiving end of that, you would say yes. The niceties of claimed legal legitimacy would be somewhat lost on you if you witnessed your family and neighbours being killed by a NATO aircraft. The best thing I would have said would be to put an end to all militaristic and terrorist killing. The west has a long history of sending its "legitimate" armies to suppress peoples. These conflicts did not suddenly start in September 2001. The west was hardly a peaceful and honourable force for peace before then.

(October 1, 2010 at 8:43 pm)Existentialist Wrote: There is no such thing as islamic terrorism - those are just unconnected words thrown together to reinforce a construct. You could do the same with atheist terrorism if you wanted, the Red Army Faction come to mind. The big religions and the big ideologies don't terrorise, people do, usually in small, alienated groups. To defend itself a society must either tackle the alienation politically (the Northern Ireland approach - eventually) or determine to defend itself directly against individual terrorists and put society beyond harm when they are caught. Extending the blame for the actions of 20-30 people to another 1.6 billion stretches credibility, to say the least. We also have to ask what is terrorism? Does the bombing and killing of civilians in Afghanistan count? If you were on the receiving end of that, you would say yes. The niceties of claimed legal legitimacy would be somewhat lost on you if you witnessed your family and neighbours being killed by a NATO aircraft. The best thing I would have said would be to put an end to all militaristic and terrorist killing. The west has a long history of sending its "legitimate" armies to suppress peoples. These conflicts did not suddenly start in September 2001. The west was hardly a peaceful and honourable force for peace before then.

It's worth making the point that the 9/11 attacks weren't against christianity or any other religion.

They were against the three symbols of perceived American imperialism.

That Osama binliner is a muslim is a minor point that the US gov used to focus the hatred.

(October 1, 2010 at 5:53 am)A Theist Wrote: Are you saying that I don't have the right to raise concerns about terrorist attacks by Muslims because there's violence in Christian history? What if you and I were both the victims of a terrorist attack, wouldn't I be just as affected as you? I say your anti christian sentiment is causing you to down play the Islamic terror threat.

I admit I find hypocrisy distracting, even if I agree with the message being preached.

It's like the drunkard who, while intoxicated by his liquor, rails against the dangers of drugs. I agree that taking drugs is a bad idea but shouldn't you sober up first before you get on your soapbox about them?

As Jesus said, pull the mote out of your own eye first.

Quote:What about the terrorism that has come from your side?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Und...anization)

Why is this "my side"?

Quote:You could do the same with atheist terrorism if you wanted, the Red Army Faction come to mind.

Is there a cause/effect relationship at work? Does not believing in God or in any religion inherently promote violence?

Quote:That Osama binliner is a muslim is a minor point that the US gov used to focus the hatred.

I would agree that America and the West have done much that is wrong in the Mid-East. However, have you read Bin Laden's manifesto? What angers the radical Muslim world is the encroachment of secularism and the threat that has for their way of life.

Quote:

Quote:You could do the same with atheist terrorism if you wanted, the Red Army Faction come to mind.

Is there a cause/effect relationship at work? Does not believing in God or in any religion inherently promote violence?

Believing in God or religion, and not believing in God or religion, are equally non-causal of violence. Violence is perpetrated by people, for humanist reasons: alienation, resource deprivation, resistance to oppression. Whatever the apparent reason, only the individual can take responsibility for their violence.

Ah... but there are countless instances of religion inspiring people to commit violence... for solely religious reasons. The guide books of the major religions do recommend violence in certain circumstances and, while the people committing said violence are responsible for their own actions, said violence may not have happened had their religion not given them justification.

(October 2, 2010 at 10:02 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

Quote:What about the terrorism that has come from your side?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Und...anization)


Why is this "my side"?

No need to speculate. Here's a group of Christian terrorists who were stopped before they could do the "Lord's work":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree

This isn't "my side" either.

It all boils down to extremism. Extremism exists on all sides, but right now, at this point in history, Islam is the most actively and effectively extreme. Are these extremists a threat to the 'rest of the world'? Yes. 'Other' extremists (and extremist organizations) still exist, but Islam is currently the most prolific.

^ My 2 cents.