Criticizing Islam is racist?

[MTL]

Deism is illogical though. If you are open to God existing, you should be open to the idea that he sent guidance and that the best creation are Guides. That he united their cause in form of religion, and the chosen ones become the uniting flag of the friends of God.  If you believe in God, why would he not communicate to humanity?

Oh, I disagree.

I think that if you must believe in God at all,
Deism is the most logical approach when you consider how much harm is done in the name of religion.

Just because Deism scorns the nonsense that most religions thus far CLAIM is the guidance God has sent,

(because they all obviously disagree...amongst having countless other flaws, as well),

does not automatically mean that a Deist would necessarily prohibit the possibility
that God might someday send guidance to mankind;

For example, a Deist might be overjoyed to see God visibly descended on a cloud tomorrow,
and all of humanity...even the deaf and blind and braindead...were simultaneously aware of it,
and all of humanity received His message at once,
with no dispute whatsoever on the meaning of it,
and for once it wasn't complicated or confusing, but utterly, utterly clear, at a glance, even to a child.

But in any event, the Deist isn't counting on such an event
and won't lose any sleep over it.


To you, it seems illogical that God would create us, then not send guidance.

To me, I don't see why not.

I think we could very well just be a petri dish culture,
in a lab full of other petri dish cultures that He is monitoring, that's all.

Who knows what God is thinking?
I certainly don't claim to know,
and I doubt anyone else does, either.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Making blanket statements about any given group is bigotry and ultimately dangerous.

The underlying feeling when making blanket statements is one of exclusion and one of better off if they didn't exist.

...he said, making a blanket statement.

... about behavior, not people, and therefore no exclusion follows.

I imagine he put the conditional "about any group" in there for a reason.

[MTL]

...he said, making a blanket statement.

... about behavior, not people, and therefore no exclusion follows.

I imagine he put the conditional "about any group" in there for a reason.

It does apply to a group of people.

It applies to any people who are willing to make a blanket statement about any group.

[Anomalocaris]

Deism is illogical though. If you are open to God existing, you should be open to the idea that he sent guidance and that the best creation are Guides. That he united their cause in form of religion, and the chosen ones become the uniting flag of the friends of God.  If you believe in God, why would he not communicate to humanity?

Why would he communicate with humanity?

what makes you think you are so special that just because you are human, you want God to communicate with you, therefore God has to communicate with humans?




See, in the end, you belief in God is nothing but an outgrowth of your infantile and petulant desire to pretend what you want must actually be reality, and you will kill any part of the brain you are given so as not to be bothered by the utter stupidity of both the desire, and the pretense.

[MTL]

All pedophiles are sick;
even the pedos who contain their impulses and never actually touch a child.


There.

That's a blanket statement about a group of people.

Am I a bigot for that?

[vorlon13]

No true pedo would forgo molesting children.

[vorlon13]

[Jaxxie1181]

I don't believe honest critique of the religion of Islam is racist. The problem is that criticism of Islam, in America at least, is somehow intrinsically linked to fear of people who look like they might be from the Middle East. Islam is a religion, and not everyone who practices looks like they're Middle Eastern. With that said, you have a lot of fundiecons (especially in the Bible Belt) who will look at any darker skinned person and say something stupid like, "wonder if 'ol Muhammad over there is hiding a bomb under his clothes. Go fuck a camel, Mooslum!" That is most likely due to racism, not an honest problem with the ideology behind the religion.

[TaraJo]

1)  Islamophobia is a 'thing,' but it's vastly overblown.  Being afraid your neighbors are going to blow your house up just because they're Muslim?  That's Islamophobia becase it's an unreasonable fear of Islam.  Pointing out the horrible things in the Koran or the atrocious things the government says/does in Muslim countries?  That isn't Islamophobia.


2)  Muslim or Islam isn't a race.  Never has been.  Yes, there may be intermingling with the Arab racial group, but there are a lot of Muslims in the Philipines, Africa and even Europe and they certainly aren't Arabian.

3)  This is the nonsense that gets brought up by Atheism+ and other social justice atheists.  While social justice may certainly lead people to atheism and it can certainly fit into atheism, a little nuance is necessary.  It kinda amazes me that these people will harshly condemn the slightest implication of misogyny or homophobia in America, but actually defend some of the most harshly misogynistic and homophobic nations on earth.

4)  The surest way to do long term damage to and ideology, including Islam, is to hold it above questioning.  Without being able to question something, you lose the ability to think about it critically and without critical thinking, it just devolves into a bunch of extremist assholes.  And, yes, this means I welcome you to question any of my ideologes; if I can't answer your questions, I need to rethink my position.

[Thumpalumpacus]

... about behavior, not people, and therefore no exclusion follows.

I imagine he put the conditional "about any group" in there for a reason.

It does apply to a group of people.

It applies to any people who are willing to make a blanket statement about any group.

... said the guy who wrote:

I ultimately will still regard them as being accountable for their own personal choice [...]

If someone chooses to be a bigot, that's their own business. That's their right. They do not have the right to be free of criticism, and when they're being bigoted, they should be called on it. Criticizing them is one way of holding them accountable.

Not everyone who criticizes any religion is a bigot against that religion. But if you overgeneralize from a small sample ("all Catholics are child molesters", or "all Muslims are jihadis"), then you're engaging in sloppy thinking at the very least. If you target the same group in multiple generalizations absent solid support, then bigotry is the apt word.

Why you are so eager to defend fallacious thinking is beyond me.

All pedophiles are sick;
even the pedos who contain their impulses and never actually touch a child.


There.

That's a blanket statement about a group of people.

Am I a bigot for that?

Your refusal to distinguish between the ideology of Islam, and the fact that the majority of Muslims do not adhere to the most obnoxious precepts -- they cherry-pick the Quran, you know -- means that you might be. I don't know you well enough to assess completely.

I implicitly distrust people who show themselves incapable or unwilling to engage in nuanced thinking. Is that you? I don't know.

If the shoe fits, wear it. But don't complain for being "held accountable" when you do something silly like broad-brush groups of people.

As for pedophiles, according to DSM-V, it is indeed a mental disorder, so I wouldn't say you're being bigoted against them, merely restating a fact. Now, using Abaris's example earlier ("I could say, I can't stand biking on the sidewalk. But if I say, all cyclists are thugs and killers, always biking on the sidewalk, the whole argument is taken to a different level"), clearly what he's getting at is not that direct commentary of the core qualities of a group is bigotry, but the extension of unwarranted assumptions to the entire group based on a small subset of them.