Bill Maher owns Hasselbeck on The View [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Bill Maher owns Hasselbeck on The View

Johnny Groove
11-16-2011, 05:11 PM
Elisabeth Hasselbeck, she is. And she's a bitch. And Bill Maher tells her as much.

10HEp5ddR6c

Also, the followup:

http://www.eonline.com/news/bill_maher_on_hasselbeck_feud_i_kid/275395

The energy was pretty high, emotions on fire, you could tell she wanted Bill Maher.

As he said: "It makes the sex hotter" :aplot:

jmjhb
11-16-2011, 05:25 PM
:lol:, that was like watching a playground fight.

Bill Maher :lol:

Hasselbeck really needs to go and wash that sand out of her vagina.

Seingeist
11-16-2011, 05:43 PM
Elisabeth Hasselbeck, she is. And she's a bitch. And Bill Maher tells her as much.

The energy was pretty high, emotions on fire, you could tell she wanted Bill Maher.

As he said: "It makes the sex hotter" :aplot:

Bill Maher is a vile misogynistic coward who is terrified of his intellectual peers and betters.

I suppose that your attraction to him is thus perfectly understandable.

Your tone in this post is disgusting. I can practically see the saliva dripping out of your mouth as you call her a "bitch" and claim that she "wanted" Bill Maher (who might just be the ugliest goblin on television).

Lopez
11-16-2011, 05:47 PM
Bill Maher is a vile misogynistic coward who is terrified of his intellectual peers and betters.

Even if this were true, Hasselbeck is certainly not one. It amazes me that the View can have idiots like her, not to mention Sherri Shepherd :rolls:.

Being republican is one thing, no one should be crucified for that. But those two are simply ignorant :shrug:

And this misogynist thing is about him dissing some republican women candidates for their ridiculous views am I right :scratch:?

jmjhb
11-16-2011, 05:47 PM
I'm deducing from Seingeist's post that he wasn't the biggest fan of Maher's film Religulous. :lol:

Lopez
11-16-2011, 05:48 PM
I'm deducing from Seingeist's post that he wasn't the biggest fan of Maher's film Religulous. :lol:

Saw it recently, it was OK :yeah:

Har-Tru
11-16-2011, 05:58 PM
"Really? I feel like I'm in high school sitting next to you." :rolls:

Maher :worship:

Seingeist
11-16-2011, 06:02 PM
And this misogynist thing is about him dissing some republican women candidates for their ridiculous views am I right :scratch:?

No, you are not right. The "misogynist thing" is about his consistently disrespectful attitude and tone about women. It's common enough, but it sickens me all the same.

If this is not something that you can easily recognize throughout his posting history, then you may have a strain of it yourself. I doubt that you do, though, because I have never seen you carrying on in the manner that he does.

Lopez
11-16-2011, 06:06 PM
No, you are not right. The "misogynist thing" is about his consistently disrespectful attitude and tone about women. It's common enough, but it sickens me all the same.

If this is not something that you can easily recognize throughout his posting history, then you may have a strain of it yourself. I doubt that you do, though, because I have never seen you carrying on in the manner that he does.

I don't really follow Maher closely enough to make a judgement on this, just the occasional youtube-clip (surprisingly American politics -centered comedey shows aren't that popular here in Finland :p). Just remember seeing one clip where Fox really made a big deal out of nothing (not that they're any better, remember how Hillary Clinton was treated way back when she was still a candidate :lol:?).

And yes you're right, I'm no misogynist

Tommy_Vercetti
11-16-2011, 06:10 PM
I get so sick of people making a big deal about these incidents. People Maher, Stewart, O'Reilly, Hannity and Colbert are nothing but tools. Their little spats with people are meaningless to anyone but sheeple.

Har-Tru
11-16-2011, 06:10 PM
8uqiv3tCghA

fast_clay
11-16-2011, 06:11 PM
O'Reilly is the most giant dildo i have ever seen...

Naudio Spanlatine
11-16-2011, 06:12 PM
i think bill is really a rude coward, i mean im a democrat as well but to hear him go at it on elisabeth like that and saying stupid comments while she was stating her opinion is so ridiculous, and can we please not call women "bitches" its getting really annoying and it makes you look like you dont respect women at all!O

Tommy_Vercetti
11-16-2011, 06:14 PM
Maher is known for being a tool. He doesn't own anyone, anymore than Stewart. They just have this idiotic Occupy Wall Street fan base. They are nothing more than the Peter Keating's of television.

Sham Kay
11-16-2011, 06:24 PM
It's always the calm, cool and collected that come out well from these things. Hasselbeck was and is anything but these things. Slinging immature insults with huge tones of sarcasm in every sentence isn't constructive. Sheeshus.

Mjau!
11-16-2011, 06:27 PM
Bill Maher is a racist tool.

YuwGyhY8dsE

Verd
11-16-2011, 06:28 PM
claim that she "wanted" Bill Maher (who might just be the ugliest goblin on television).

Ann Coulter, despite the grotesque hate speech she spews, isn't exactly a fugly goblin in the looks department and even so she has slept with Maher. :shrug:

Maher's misogyny is pretty well-documented and is a major stain on his otherwise liberal stances. Doesn't make his assessment of Hasselbeck's views/lack of intelligence any less accurate.

And the idea that Hasselbeck is defending "all women" by going after Maher is just :spit: -- she is out for herself, that's all, and guests on the show have confirmed that Hasselbeck is the only panelist on The View to get coached with right-wing talking points before the shows are taped, basically because she can't think for herself and isn't bright enough to be able to defend the views she promotes. No surprise she has recently developed a penchant for ambushing and trying to put on the spot any liberal who has ever made a joke about her, without realizing that she's the one who comes out looking worse in the end.

Filo V.
11-16-2011, 07:06 PM
Ann Coulter is fucking disgusting and looks like a horse. I think Elizabeth Hasselbeck is mostly stupid, loves to play victim, and brainwashed and repeats Christian right-wing talking points, but I wouldn't necessarily say she's a bad person, I think she's a mostly good person who is misguided. At least unlike that horrendous Sherri Shepherd. Now that's someone who deserves all the criticism she gets.

As for Maher, what you see is what you get. This really isn't that big of a deal. He knew what he was getting into.

Seingeist
11-16-2011, 09:29 PM
I don't really follow Maher closely enough to make a judgement on this, just the occasional youtube-clip (surprisingly American politics -centered comedey shows aren't that popular here in Finland :p). Just remember seeing one clip where Fox really made a big deal out of nothing (not that they're any better, remember how Hillary Clinton was treated way back when she was still a candidate :lol:?).

And yes you're right, I'm no misogynist

Slightly crossed wires, here. Maher is certainly a misogynist, but my elaboration was about Johnny Groove.

safin-rules-no.1
11-16-2011, 09:34 PM
Seingeist is the real misogynist.

Seingeist
11-16-2011, 09:46 PM
Seingeist is the real misogynist.

I've no doubt that you're as aware as I am how completely baseless this charge is.

Nice try, though! :yeah:

safin-rules-no.1
11-16-2011, 09:47 PM
I've no doubt that you're as aware as I am how completely baseless this charge is.

Nice try, though! :yeah:

Nice try with the denial :yeah:

Seingeist
11-16-2011, 09:54 PM
Nice try with the denial :yeah:

Make your case then, fool.

Lopez
11-16-2011, 10:08 PM
Slightly crossed wires, here. Maher is certainly a misogynist, but my elaboration was about Johnny Groove.

Oh, I see, I did wonder if "posting history" was figure of speech or something :p :lol:.

Don't really know that about Groove either, just that he seems to be a bit too much into relationships/women/sex. Kinda like Bilbo, but not in a creepy way "I've read all the books" -way that's downright scary and, honestly, a bit delusional.

out_here_grindin
11-16-2011, 10:54 PM
remember when he owned Brian Griffin?

BNbpSv4-4Is

buddyholly
11-17-2011, 12:32 AM
Guess the ratings must have been dropping and they brought in Maher to the rescue. If your title is correct I guess then they let Hasselback play the Goldberg role for the day. Although she is a lot better looking than any of the others, so there probably is a lot of real envy there.

I won't watch the video, it probably is as real as Snooki and the Situation.

emotion
11-17-2011, 02:02 AM
maher was wrong about there being no god. He IS god

Kolya
11-17-2011, 02:15 AM
Ahh Republicans...

shiaben
11-17-2011, 02:34 AM
I remember this from him:

On October 29, 2010, during a Real Time segment, Maher commented on a news story saying that the name Mohammed had become the most popular baby name in the United Kingdom. He asked, "Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that? Because I am. And it’s not because of the race, it’s because of the religion. I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam in 300 years? Sharia law is being institutionalized in England? Well, then I am right, I should be alarmed."

He is a disgrace to true liberals. He's an ethnocentric racist Zionist dirt bag that is no better than the Neo-Nazi conservatives he criticizes.

buddyholly
11-17-2011, 02:41 AM
I remember this from him:

On October 29, 2010, during a Real Time segment, Maher commented on a news story saying that the name Mohammed had become the most popular baby name in the United Kingdom. He asked, "Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that? Because I am. And it’s not because of the race, it’s because of the religion. I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam in 300 years? Sharia law is being institutionalized in England? Well, then I am right, I should be alarmed."

He is a disgrace to true liberals. He's an ethnocentric racist Zionist dirt bag that is no better than the Neo-Nazi conservatives he criticizes.

I don't want the world to be taken over by Islam either. Because the brand of Islam that wants to take over is a blight on the planet. Of course, Maher was talking as an atheist, as am I. Every time Sharia Law is brought up by a Muslim cleric in a civilised country he should be shipped off somewhere, away from civilization.

shiaben
11-17-2011, 02:55 AM
I don't want the world to be taken over by Islam either. Because the brand of Islam that wants to take over is a blight on the planet. Of course, Maher was talking as an atheist, as am I. Every time Sharia Law is brought up by a Muslim cleric in a civilised country he should be shipped off somewhere, away from civilization.

Sharia Law in the true sense cannot exist in the Western World. It's impossible. It would only exist in some form of applied theocracy. So it's very stupid for idiots like Maher to think that there's an Islamic invasion happening in the West.

shiaben
11-17-2011, 03:00 AM
Bill Maher is a racist tool.

YuwGyhY8dsE

Yep a closet Zionist supporter.

No surprises why he would also endorse racial profiling at airports.

The type of person to bring more disunity among people.

Mjau!
11-17-2011, 03:22 AM
I don't want the world to be taken over by Islam either. Because the brand of Islam that wants to take over is a blight on the planet. Of course, Maher was talking as an atheist, as am I. Every time Sharia Law is brought up by a Muslim cleric in a civilised country he should be shipped off somewhere, away from civilization.

So why does Maher feel it was okay for the zionists to colonize and ethnically cleanse Palestine? Why does he justify forcefully stealing other people's land to establish an ethnocentric jewish state? It can only be explained by religious wackery or racism and since he's an atheist that narrows it down to racist.

Seingeist
11-17-2011, 04:15 AM
Because the brand of Islam that wants to take over is a blight on the planet. Of course, Maher was talking as an atheist, as am I.

I am neither "racist" nor "atheist," and I have no desire to live under any version of Sharia law either.

Brand me however you like, shiaben et al, but I have come to appreciate various freedoms (e.g. religious freedom) that exist in the West but that do not exist in certain Islamic countries.

Of course, speaking for the U.S. anyway, Islam is in no way the biggest threat to religious freedom, but that's another topic. ;)

Yolita
11-17-2011, 04:31 AM
Hasselback came across as really angry and immature. Even her insults were embarrasingly stupid. She didn't help her cause, she just made Bill Maher look smarter and wittier. :lol: :lol:

There are many intelligent women around! But maybe not in the Republican Party! :lol:

Clydey
11-17-2011, 04:31 AM
I've no doubt that you're as aware as I am how completely baseless this charge is.

Nice try, though! :yeah:

Anyone who takes the bible literally and worships its author is absolutely a misogynist.

Clydey
11-17-2011, 04:33 AM
I am neither "racist" nor "atheist," and I have no desire to live under any version of Sharia law either.

Brand me however you like, shiaben et al, but I have come to appreciate various freedoms (e.g. religious freedom) that exist in the West but that do not exist in certain Islamic countries.

Of course, speaking for the U.S. anyway, Islam is in no way the biggest threat to religious freedom, but that's another topic. ;)

Of course it is. What could possibly be a bigger threat?

Orka_n
11-17-2011, 05:02 AM
Anyone who takes the bible literally and worships its author is absolutely a misogynist.Yes because the Bible has only 1 author and all the Bible's books describe the role of women in the exact same way.

Topspindoctor
11-17-2011, 05:10 AM
I don't want the world to be taken over by Islam either. Because the brand of Islam that wants to take over is a blight on the planet. Of course, Maher was talking as an atheist, as am I. Every time Sharia Law is brought up by a Muslim cleric in a civilised country he should be shipped off somewhere, away from civilization.


Change that to "All religion is a blight on the planet" and you would be correct. Our world would be a much better place without imaginary friends.

Seingeist
11-17-2011, 06:38 AM
Of course it is. What could possibly be a bigger threat?

Secular humanists on a rampage, Clydey, many of whom share the same misguided, open contempt for Christianity that you do and are desperate to see it snuffed out of existence, even at the cost of "religious freedom."

The odds of Islam formally taking over the United States strike me as extremely remote; the secular humanists, on the other hand, are striking political blows against the free practice of Christianity regularly.

Anyone who takes the bible literally and worships its author is absolutely a misogynist.

Nope. As usual, your assertion is lazy, thoughtless, unfounded, and false. I would dismantle your case but you haven't actually made one (quelle surprise!).

(For someone who not infrequently touts his own intellectual prowess, your posts betray an embarrassing unwillingness to think with any degree of insight, nuance, or fairness).

Change that to "All religion is a blight on the planet" and you would be correct. Our world would be a much better place without imaginary friends.

Human nature is the problem, Topspindoctor, not religion. And unfortunately, human beings have the profound capacity to wrest nearly anything into the service of their own malice, avarice, and pride, including "religion."

Cat9
11-17-2011, 11:00 AM
And this misogynist thing is about him dissing some republican women candidates for their ridiculous views am I right

Wrong. Really really wrong. This misogynist thing is about Maher hating ALL women. I mean really hating. I watched him 5 nights a week on PI for five years. The man loathes women to a creepy, startling degree. If a woman went missing in a 50 mile radius of Maher's house, I'd start digging up his backyard.

buddyholly
11-17-2011, 12:25 PM
Sharia Law in the true sense cannot exist in the Western World. It's impossible. It would only exist in some form of applied theocracy. So it's very stupid for idiots like Maher to think that there's an Islamic invasion happening in the West.

Whatever the true sense means. It should be attacked in any sense.
We have a case in Ontario right now where an Afghan father, wife and son of 18 years old at the time of the crime, put wife #1 and three teenaged daughters in a car and shoved it into Lake Ontario. Why? Because the girls wanted to dress western and talk to boys.
That is the kind of Islamic thought that needs to be banished from civilisation.

Har-Tru
11-17-2011, 12:26 PM
I remember this from him:

On October 29, 2010, during a Real Time segment, Maher commented on a news story saying that the name Mohammed had become the most popular baby name in the United Kingdom. He asked, "Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that? Because I am. And it’s not because of the race, it’s because of the religion. I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam in 300 years? Sharia law is being institutionalized in England? Well, then I am right, I should be alarmed."

He is a disgrace to true liberals. He's an ethnocentric racist Zionist dirt bag that is no better than the Neo-Nazi conservatives he criticizes.

He was absolutely right with that statement. It's just he's one of the few who actually has the balls to say it.

Har-Tru
11-17-2011, 12:47 PM
Yes because the Bible has only 1 author and all the Bible's books describe the role of women in the exact same way.

What is this supposed to mean? Did he say anything like that?

There are several books that undermine women clearly, several times and in several ways. Should we cherrypick and just ignore the ugly bits of the bible and keep the ones we find ok?

Har-Tru
11-17-2011, 12:50 PM
Secular humanists on a rampage, Clydey, many of whom share the same misguided, open contempt for Christianity that you do and are desperate to see it snuffed out of existence, even at the cost of "religious freedom."

The odds of Islam formally taking over the United States strike me as extremely remote; the secular humanists, on the other hand, are striking political blows against the free practice of Christianity regularly.

Please expand and give some examples.

emotion
11-17-2011, 01:06 PM
I remember this from him:

On October 29, 2010, during a Real Time segment, Maher commented on a news story saying that the name Mohammed had become the most popular baby name in the United Kingdom. He asked, "Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that? Because I am. And it’s not because of the race, it’s because of the religion. I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam in 300 years? Sharia law is being institutionalized in England? Well, then I am right, I should be alarmed."

He is a disgrace to true liberals. He's an ethnocentric racist Zionist dirt bag that is no better than the Neo-Nazi conservatives he criticizes.

He's anti-religion, not a racist

Sham Kay
11-17-2011, 01:50 PM
I remember this from him:

On October 29, 2010, during a Real Time segment, Maher commented on a news story saying that the name Mohammed had become the most popular baby name in the United Kingdom. He asked, "Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that? Because I am. And it’s not because of the race, it’s because of the religion. I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam in 300 years? Sharia law is being institutionalized in England? Well, then I am right, I should be alarmed."

He is a disgrace to true liberals. He's an ethnocentric racist Zionist dirt bag that is no better than the Neo-Nazi conservatives he criticizes.
Everything outspoken regarding religion and race nowadays is judged to be racist. People are unable and unwilling to talk about these issues because of the fact it taints your reputation. What he said was an opinion on how things may be in the future, and he is correct, it is a troubling prospect. Of course by even considering this possibility as a bad thing or god forbid agreeing with this point of view a person becomes just another racist..

Well anyway, I wish there were a few people as outspoken as Bill Maher in the UK.. must be how the media reacts to things here.

Orka_n
11-17-2011, 02:14 PM
What is this supposed to mean? Did he say anything like that?

There are several books that undermine women clearly, several times and in several ways. Should we cherrypick and just ignore the ugly bits of the bible and keep the ones we find ok?And here we go again. I hate discussing religion on this site.

To answer your question: no, we shouldn't ignore the ugly bits and only keep the good ones. But neither should we only keep the ugly ones (which incidentally have a cultural context people critical of the Bible tend to forget) and simply discard parts like "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Har-Tru
11-17-2011, 02:17 PM
I guess Americans find it hard to understand how the recent wave of Muslim immigration affects Western societies, since their Muslim immigration quota is much lower than in Europe.

Where I'm from, Islamic individuals and institutions have been asking for the ban of an ancient festivity depicting the reconquista, the historical events in which the Christians conquered the various kingdoms of the Iberian peninsula back from the Moors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moros_y_cristianos

This is an intrinsical part of Valencian tradition, now under threat by religious zealots, with the connivance of some local appeasers and religion apologists, providing a perfect example of "tolerance of intolerance".


Another example from personal experience, this time in Germany: some months ago, in the school where I teach, taking advantage of the good weather and the school facilities, we decided to offer a barbecue to some Belgian guests we were hosting. Us being in Germany, we obviously bought tons of sausages. But knowing that some of the students were Muslim (mainly Turkish), we also bought some chicken filets and even some beef.

But alas! One of our German students, keen to help, committed the unspeakable sin of taking some of the chicken filets with the same tongs he'd grabbed the sausages. That was the dinner right there. Some of the Muslim students saw it, and we were forced to throw away most of the meat. The Muslim students from Belgium stormed out, taking the rest of the Belgian delegation for which the dinner had been planned, and most of our Turkish students with them.

So don't come and tell me the Muslim influence in Western societies is a myth and we shouldn't be alarmed by the developments.

buddyholly
11-17-2011, 02:46 PM
Wrong. Really really wrong. This misogynist thing is about Maher hating ALL women. I mean really hating. I watched him 5 nights a week on PI for five years.:lol:

buddyholly
11-17-2011, 02:51 PM
The odds of Islam formally taking over the United States strike me as extremely remote; the secular humanists, on the other hand, are striking political blows against the free practice of Christianity regularly.





You can practice religion freely in the privacy of your own home or in the community of your filthy rich, tax free churches at any time. What more do you want? Forcing the rest of us to join in?

Gagsquet
11-17-2011, 03:09 PM
It's just me or all threads where Seingeist posts drifted into a religious debate.

Clydey
11-17-2011, 03:12 PM
Yes because the Bible has only 1 author and all the Bible's books describe the role of women in the exact same way.

The 'spiritual' author is supposedly God. That is the one entity I am referring to. Secondly, who said anything about each of the actual authors describing the role of women in an identical fashion? The fact is that women aren't exactly valued in the bible, to put it mildly.

Clydey
11-17-2011, 03:22 PM
Secular humanists on a rampage, Clydey, many of whom share the same misguided, open contempt for Christianity that you do and are desperate to see it snuffed out of existence, even at the cost of "religious freedom."

Yes, the 10% of the planet who do not believe in a deity are clearly a massive threat to religious freedom.

You are free to believe whatever you like. What you are not free to do is force your beliefs on anyone else. Atheists are the victims in America, not religious people.

The odds of Islam formally taking over the United States strike me as extremely remote; the secular humanists, on the other hand, are striking political blows against the free practice of Christianity regularly.

Do you have any examples of this?

Nope. As usual, your assertion is lazy, thoughtless, unfounded, and false. I would dismantle your case but you haven't actually made one (quelle surprise!).

If my assertion is really lazy and thoughtless, it shouldn't be difficult to debunk.

Do you deny that the god of the old testament is a misogynist?

(For someone who not infrequently touts his own intellectual prowess, your posts betray an embarrassing unwillingness to think with any degree of insight, nuance, or fairness).

I don't recall doing any such thing. You are projecting.

Human nature is the problem, Topspindoctor, not religion. And unfortunately, human beings have the profound capacity to wrest nearly anything into the service of their own malice, avarice, and pride, including "religion."

It is particularly easy to use something to serve one's own ends when those ends are explicitly stated in a 'Holy Book'.

Clydey
11-17-2011, 03:30 PM
And here we go again. I hate discussing religion on this site.

To answer your question: no, we shouldn't ignore the ugly bits and only keep the good ones. But neither should we only keep the ugly ones (which incidentally have a cultural context people critical of the Bible tend to forget) and simply discard parts like "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Isn't God perfect? Cultural context should be irrelvant to an absolutist version of morality. If God is so insular as to be influenced by the moral zeitgeist, he is far less enlightened than many mere humans who have engineered change over the centuries. Your average participant in civil rights movements is more enlightened than your god.

out_here_grindin
11-17-2011, 05:14 PM
Isn't God perfect? Cultural context should be irrelvant to an absolutist version of morality. If God is so insular as to be influenced by the moral zeitgeist, he is far less enlightened than many mere humans who have engineered change over the centuries. Your average participant in civil rights movements is more enlightened than your god.

Yep. The pope would shave many parts of the bible if he could(can't do it because that would cripple tradition and centuries of teachings). Many things that seemed ok when the Council of Trent took a look are out of date today.

Mjau!
11-17-2011, 05:43 PM
The Old Testament and the New Testament shouldn't be part of the same religion, because they are contradictory. Jesus rejected 'The Law' that would become the OT.

Har-Tru
11-17-2011, 05:47 PM
The Old Testament and the New Testament shouldn't be part of the same religion, because they are contradictory. Jesus rejected 'The Law' that would become the OT.

And yet stated that no one should remove "a jot and a tittle" from it? :scratch:

Seingeist
11-17-2011, 06:14 PM
Well, all of the following is plenty off-topic, but since this is a shit thread anyway, why not?

You can practice religion freely in the privacy of your own home or in the community of your filthy rich, tax free churches at any time. What more do you want? Forcing the rest of us to join in?

This is appalling, and it's exactly the attitude that I'm talking about. You Christians are free to believe what you like as long as you shut up and keep it strictly confined to yourselves. It's like a societal-religious version of "Don't ask, don't tell." All manner of obscenity hammers our airwaves and is pervading our curricula but Christianity is told to keep its ugly head down and make itself scarce.

That's well beyond separation of church and state (which is simply against the establishment of a state religion) and it's an impediment to the free practice of religion.

That unnecessary remark about the "filthy rich churches" makes it seem like you're being infected by this late wave of Obama's anti-rich populism.


It's just me or all threads where Seingeist posts drifted into a religious debate.

I'm actually really glad that you said this, Grassquet, because it provides us with an opportunity for instruction. While you assigned no explicit blame for this, I am guessing that you assumed me to be the one mainly responsible for this particular phenomenon.

But I invite you to notice something that is becoming a pattern in all such threads that "drift into religious debate."

Where exactly did "Christianity" pop into this discussion? Allow me to direct you to its point of entry:
Anyone who takes the bible literally and worships its author is absolutely a misogynist.

Ahh yes, Grassquet, now you remember. An unwarranted, inflammatory, baseless attack directed against me as a Christian. And when I make any comment at all in response, usually pointing out the falsity and unfairness of the attack, people start bitching about the devolution of threads into "religious debate."

Believe you me, Grassquet. Like Orka N, I have absolutely no desire to discuss Christianity with the likes of these. But I have this persistently annoying impulse to defend myself or Christianity when I (and it) are falsely and viciously slagged off.

The fact is that women aren't exactly valued in the bible, to put it mildly.

Another bald and unsupported assertion, another blatantly false assertion. What else is new? :shrug:

What you are not free to do is force your beliefs on anyone else.

Common hypocritical doublespeak designed to silence Christians. Every time that we (people, citizens, etc.) open our mouths to say something, or debate with someone, or educate someone about anything, or design and enact legislation, we are, in a sense, "forcing our beliefs on [someone] else." The only way that this can be avoided is to believe and assert nothing, which is absurd.

"Forcing beliefs on anyone else" would really only be meaningful in the context of a state religion, in which case it would be punishable by law not to believe certain religious tenets (as it is in some Islamic countries). As it stands, it's an empty (and bad-faith) claim made mostly by whinging anti-Christians who are desperate for them to flee from the public discourse.

Atheists are the victims in America, not religious people.

:lol:

Do you have any examples of this?

They're abundant, such that it is more practical to speak broadly or categorically. They tend to lie in the attempts to purge Christianity from schools, universities, institutions, and media. If you're not already more than familiar with these (e.g. attacks on school prayer, on public displays of the nativity scene, etc.), you can do the research as easily as I can.

If my assertion is really lazy and thoughtless, it shouldn't be difficult to debunk.

You don't seem to understand how this works, do you? The burden is on you to make a case in the first place for your own insulting and false assertion.

Imagine if I said, "Clydey, you're a homophobe and a racist," and then when you replied, "That's absurd," I said, "Well, it should be easy to prove me wrong then." The point, of course, is not at all the ease or difficulty of the task. The point is that it's not your job to build a case against a mere careless, insulting, unsupported assertion.

As it stands, there's nothing there to debunk, Clydey. You make an incorrect statement, I point out that you're wrong (again), and that's the end of the story until you actually have anything of substance with which to make a case. :shrug:

Do you deny that the god of the old testament is a misogynist?

Yes. (Boy that was easy)

It is particularly easy to use something to serve one's own ends when those ends are explicitly stated in a 'Holy Book'.

This is overly simplistic and not quite what I had in mind. In the vast majority of historical cases, abuses that have been committed in the name of Christianity do not even attempt to provide a Scriptural justification, so it does not have as much to do with what exactly the "Holy Book" says. Indeed, throughout much of history, the Catholic church actively attempted to keep the "Holy Book" out of the hands of laypeople lest they read what it has to say for themselves.

It's much more about politics and institutional power. Anyone seeking power under any regime has to play by certain rules and adopt a certain set of practices. When Christianity becomes the locus of political or sovereign power, people who are hungry to wield that power have to adopt the trappings of Christianity (of course) in order to do so. They are no more sincere about Christianity than the average politician is about everything that he is forced to espouse in order to get elected.

Power corrupts, as the saying goes, and unfortunately, this applies to religion as it does to anything else, inasmuch as we are still dealing with human nature.

And here we go again. I hate discussing religion on this site.

To answer your question: no, we shouldn't ignore the ugly bits and only keep the good ones. But neither should we only keep the ugly ones (which incidentally have a cultural context people critical of the Bible tend to forget) and simply discard parts like "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Extraordinarily well stated.

Isn't God perfect? Cultural context should be irrelvant to an absolutist version of morality.

This is mistaken. Morality (i.e. the nature of good and evil) does not change. Practices and rituals can and do change, and the reasons for their employment are in no way reducible simply to "good and evil."

Also, strictly speaking, cultural context is completely relevant to absolute morality; human actions are always informed and determined by a particular context.

For example, let's say that in one culture, shaking hands is a sign of respect, and in another, bowing is a sign of respect. In one culture, it would be wrong not to bow in certain scenarios, and in the other, wrong not to shake hands.

However, it should be obvious that this does not somehow refute absolute morality just because we cannot set out some principle, "It is always wrong not to bow to your superiors." Rather, the operative principle is more broad (e.g. it is wrong to show gratuitous disrespect to people), but in its specific application, the moral action itself changes based on the cultural context.

Mjau!
11-17-2011, 06:45 PM
And yet stated that no one should remove "a jot and a tittle" from it? :scratch:

From God's law, not the levitical/pharisean commandments of men that make up a large part of the OT.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least Commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

God's law according to Jesus C:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

"By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another"

"We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren."

"...by this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome"

'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

"Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful."

“But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”

fast_clay
11-17-2011, 06:45 PM
I guess Americans find it hard to understand how the recent wave of Muslim immigration affects Western societies, since their Muslim immigration quota is much lower than in Europe.

Where I'm from, Islamic individuals and institutions have been asking for the ban of an ancient festivity depicting the reconquista, the historical events in which the Christians conquered the various kingdoms of the Iberian peninsula back from the Moors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moros_y_cristianos

This is an intrinsical part of Valencian tradition, now under threat by religious zealots, with the connivance of some local appeasers and religion apologists, providing a perfect example of "tolerance of intolerance".


Another example from personal experience, this time in Germany: some months ago, in the school where I teach, taking advantage of the good weather and the school facilities, we decided to offer a barbecue to some Belgian guests we were hosting. Us being in Germany, we obviously bought tons of sausages. But knowing that some of the students were Muslim (mainly Turkish), we also bought some chicken filets and even some beef.

But alas! One of our German students, keen to help, committed the unspeakable sin of taking some of the chicken filets with the same tongs he'd grabbed the sausages. That was the dinner right there. Some of the Muslim students saw it, and we were forced to throw away most of the meat. The Muslim students from Belgium stormed out, taking the rest of the Belgian delegation for which the dinner had been planned, and most of our Turkish students with them.

So don't come and tell me the Muslim influence in Western societies is a myth and we shouldn't be alarmed by the developments.

reading that makes me feel pretty bad for europe... and it's not the first account i have heard of the like... the revolving door policy does have to stop and stop pretty soon... until at least the latest wave of immigration has had time to age and assimmilate, and once that latest assimmilation has taken place (if it does) only then can the west say - 'right, you come here so have some respect for how your new life was won - here's how it was done, now get on with it and don't f**k up'...

because we all know this: should the unlikely event of a mass migration eastward of western civilation, those westerners would be, not asked, but demanded to tow the line... tow the line... or what...? deportation...? detainment...? dismemberment...? take your pick... the tolerance of the west has been pushed to the absolute limit... but, that tolerance was fought for for so long through the ages that we today have no idea of the cost...

it would appear to me that this very tolerance of the west that I speak of is the very same tolerance that is being abused in order to import a culture which will subvert the natural path of the freedoms that have been won and worth winning for the centuries...

tolerance is a wonderful asset for any culture... probably even worth standing arms for... but, somewhere along the line we became so dumbed down by the expectation for people to do the sensible thing (something that tolerance demands) when entering a new environment...

maybe it's not until something touches you personally, such as the story above, that one could come to realise something is not right... or maybe we are so tolerant that in order to keep the peace we aren't prepared to let on that anything is wrong... 'give it time'...

certainly, as a decent human being, i would be offended in the absolute extreme (i can't even find the superlative to acknowledge how offended i would be) if i were to have the above incident, born from good nature and good nature alone, be shoved back in my face due to a mistake, a problem probably unknown up until that moment by the person committing the act...

what should have been an arena to share and mix culture ('umm, sorry, we don't do that... *washes utensils* here's how we do...?) instead was a reason to cause maximum insult in return...

so where is the tolerance displayed in the above story that *IS* the trademark of modern europe...?

that is not the behaviour of a moderate society... it would not even qualify as a single step backwards... when the pillar of tolerance that has been fought for for the ages in europe after mistake upon mistake is question in such a militant fashion, you then tell me how many steps backward it is when that same tolerance is given but then not returned on your very own soil...

would be like me stepping inside your front door and telling you to get the f*ck out of of your own place because the shoes out the front were not aligned the way i do at my place... pretty handy methodology to acquire vast amounts of real estate actually...

Seingeist
11-17-2011, 06:56 PM
it would appear to me that this very tolerance of the west that I speak of is the very same tolerance that is being abused in order to import a culture which will subvert the natural path of the freedoms that have been won and worth winning for the centuries...


Well-stated and right on the money, fast clay. :yeah:


Oh, and @Har-Tru, I reread through the thread and I still find it difficult to determine whom exactly you're addressing.

If it was me, I think that you have me quite mistaken.

I'd not dare minimize the cultural threat that Islam poses to the Western world in the wider sense; my statement above concerned only the more immediate threat to religious freedom (specifically Christian) in the United States.

You're quite right that what you call the "Muslim immigration quota" is much lower in the US than it is in Europe. We are not being "Islamicized" to anywhere near the extent that Europe is. Obviously, this is not true merely as a function of the immigration rate and geographical location; you might say that Americans have a pretty ingrained cultural "resistance" to Islam. That 3000 of our innocent civilians were targeted and murdered 10 years ago in the name of radical Islam obviously doesn't help matters much.

Clydey
11-17-2011, 07:09 PM
Common hypocritical doublespeak designed to silence Christians. Every time that we (people, citizens, etc.) open our mouths to say something, or debate with someone, or educate someone about anything, or design and enact legislation, we are, in a sense, "forcing our beliefs on [someone] else." The only way that this can be avoided is to believe and assert nothing, which is absurd.

You are forcing your religious beliefs on someone when those beliefs inspire a political agenda. It is no secret that gay marriage is opposed almost exclusively for religious reasons. Such things are unconstitutional.

"Forcing beliefs on anyone else" would really only be meaningful in the context of a state religion, in which case it would be punishable by law not to believe certain religious tenets (as it is in some Islamic countries). As it stands, it's an empty (and bad-faith) claim made mostly by whinging anti-Christians who are desperate for them to flee from the public discourse.

When the pledge includes the phrase 'One nation under God' the state is endorsing a religion. Again, its place in the pledge is unconstitutional.

:lol:

Atheists are the least trusted 'group' in the USA. You are either ignorant or lying to yourself if you do not think that atheists are persecuted in America. It is common knowledge and widely reported. There is a reason why politicians in the USA do not come out as atheists, even though I am certain many are. It is almost impossible to be elected unless you have an invisible friend. The Presidency is certainly not even close to being a realistic goal for the areligious.

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-akron/atheists-america-the-nation-s-least-trusted-group

They're abundant, such that it is more practical to speak broadly or categorically. They tend to lie in the attempts to purge Christianity from schools, universities, institutions, and media. If you're not already more than familiar with these (e.g. attacks on school prayer, on public displays of the nativity scene, etc.), you can do the research as easily as I can.

Of course it is more practical to speak broadly, since you have no specific examples.

Allow me to correct you. Secularists tend to tell the truth and keep religion out of science classes. Religion is not science and should not be taught as such. Are you telling me that there is no opportunity to study religion in educational institutions? Think carefully before answering, as I am eager to bury you with the facts.

You don't seem to understand how this works, do you? The burden is on you to make a case in the first place for your own insulting and false assertion.

Fair enough. These should get you started. Happy debunking.

"If however the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death..." Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head;" 1 Corinthians 11:9, 10.

"Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting to the Lord." Colossians 3:18

Imagine if I said, "Clydey, you're a homophobe and a racist," and then when you replied, "That's absurd," I said, "Well, it should be easy to prove me wrong then." The point, of course, is not at all the ease or difficulty of the task. The point is that it's not your job to build a case against a mere careless, insulting, unsupported assertion.

Poor analogy. By all means deconstruct the facts that support my 'careless, insulting, unsupported assertion'.

Yes. (Boy that was easy)

I'm looking forward to watching you tie yourself in knots while attempting to reconcile this view with the facts.

This is mistaken. Morality (i.e. the nature of good and evil) does not change. Practices and rituals can and do change, and the reasons for their employment are in no way reducible simply to "good and evil."

Of course it changes, since there is no absolute good and evil. The moral zeitgeist is always tentative. What is evil to you is not evil to someone else. Good and evil are as indefinable as crime.

Also, strictly speaking, cultural context is completely relevant to absolute morality; human actions are always informed and determined by a particular context.

If morality is absolute, actions are either right or wrong no matter where or when they take place. You cannot claim absolute morality exists and in the same breath advocate a multicultural, relativist view. Absolute morality means that if an action is evil in the USA, for example, it is also evil in Pakistan.

Yes, human agency is always informed and determined by environment, but absolute morality is constant. Again, if god is perfect and he asserted that homosexuality was wrong thousands of years ago, it then follows that it must be wrong today. This applies to all moral statements within the bible.

For example, let's say that in one culture, shaking hands is a sign of respect, and in another, bowing is a sign of respect. In one culture, it would be wrong not to bow in certain scenarios, and in the other, wrong not to shake hands.

You are not describing absolute morality. You are describing moral relativism, which is context sensitive. You seem to be utterly confused at this point. You say that absolute morality is influenced by culture and then go on to describe an example of moral relativism to back your claim.

However, it should be obvious that this does not somehow refute absolute morality just because we cannot set out some principle, "It is always wrong not to bow to your superiors." Rather, the operative principle is more broad (e.g. it is wrong to show gratuitous disrespect to people), but in its specific application, the moral action itself changes based on the cultural context.

Give me an example of a moral absolute.

Clydey
11-17-2011, 07:17 PM
It's funny that we are having this discussion today, Seingeist. I just happened to be talking online with someone I know from an MMORPG. This issue was central to the discussion.

Mjau!
11-17-2011, 07:23 PM
When the pledge includes the phrase 'One nation under God' the state is endorsing a religion. Again, its place in the pledge is unconstitutional.

The phrase doesn't endorse any particular religion and doesn't come with a set of rules. It doesn't limit anyone's freedom. :shrug:

Clydey
11-17-2011, 07:26 PM
The phrase doesn't endorse any particular religion and doesn't come with a set of rules. It doesn't limit anyone's freedom. :shrug:

It endorses the view that a god exists. That is exclusionary, since not everyone is a theist. Atheists and agnostics are excluded.

Mjau!
11-17-2011, 07:30 PM
Tiny deal. :zzz: It's like complaining about christmas and easter because not everyone celebrates xtian hollidays. :tears: :sad:

It's not like it's a ban on stem cell research...

Gagsquet
11-17-2011, 07:33 PM
Ahh yes, Grassquet, now you remember. An unwarranted, inflammatory, baseless attack directed against me as a Christian.

You could ignore it you know.

Clydey
11-17-2011, 07:39 PM
Tiny deal. :zzz: It's like complaining about christmas and easter because not everyone celebrates xtian hollidays. :tears: :sad:

Yeah, it's no big deal that American citizens are made to feel inferior because they do not believe in a deity. Kind of like it was no big deal when women were considered inferior to men, right?

It's not like it's a ban on stem cell research...

Another religiously motivated agenda. Contemptible.

Mjau!
11-17-2011, 09:36 PM
Yeah, it's no big deal that American citizens are made to feel inferior because they do not believe in a deity. Kind of like it was no big deal when women were considered inferior to men, right?

:awww:

I'm sure american atheists who aren't insecure :sobbing::baby: will :shrug: it off as a meaningless superstition.

And what about all the poor christians who are made to feel inferior because of condescending atheists that ridicule their faith, such as yourself? :sad:

Orka_n
11-17-2011, 10:01 PM
You could ignore it you know.Are you serious? He shouldn't have to ignore it.

The 'spiritual' author is supposedly God. That is the one entity I am referring to.I thought about that for a second but then dismissed the thought as I concluded that if you were indeed referring to God you would have worded it differently. (Because if you agree that there could exist one supreme "author" - who is also creator of the Universe - then would it really be strange to worship that entity?)
Secondly, who said anything about each of the actual authors describing the role of women in an identical fashion? The fact is that women aren't exactly valued in the bible, to put it mildly.This is false. *sigh*.

Isn't God perfect? Cultural context should be irrelvant to an absolutist version of morality. If God is so insular as to be influenced by the moral zeitgeist, he is far less enlightened than many mere humans who have engineered change over the centuries. Your average participant in civil rights movements is more enlightened than your god.I could respond seriously to this but it won't make any difference anyway.

Clydey
11-17-2011, 10:04 PM
:awww:

I'm sure american atheists who aren't insecure :sobbing::baby: will :shrug: it off as a meaningless superstition.

And what about all the poor christians who are made to feel inferior because of condescending atheists that ridicule their faith, such as yourself? :sad:

What does that have to do with anything? I don't recall the first amendment stating that people's views cannot be challenged. Not that it would matter to me, since I'm not American.

This issue is trivial to you because you don't identify with it. If this was about women instead of atheists, you would feel differently.

Clydey
11-17-2011, 10:07 PM
Are you serious? He shouldn't have to ignore it.

I thought about that for a second but then dismissed the thought as I concluded that if you were indeed referring to God you would have worded it differently. (Because if you agree that there could exist one supreme "author" - who is also creator of the Universe - then would it really be strange to worship that entity?)
This is false. *sigh*.

I could respond seriously to this but it won't make any difference anyway.

See my response to Seingeist. I've listed a few quotes that support what I said.

You will no doubt continue to be evasive rather than properly engage me, though.

Orka_n
11-17-2011, 10:39 PM
See my response to Seingeist. I've listed a few quotes that support what I said.

You will no doubt continue to be evasive rather than properly engage me, though.Trying to provoke me again. I already said that I have no interests in discussing these things with someone who is out to prove me wrong, it's a waste of time. I can't win the discussion and you sure can't either, since my faith is based on a lot more than only theories.

Clydey
11-17-2011, 10:50 PM
Trying to provoke me again. I already said that I have no interests in discussing these things with someone who is out to prove me wrong, it's a waste of time. I can't win the discussion and you sure can't either, since my faith is based on a lot more than only theories.

You are unwilling to discuss your opinions with people who disagree with you? Wow, just wow.

Guest12315544
11-17-2011, 11:51 PM
Well-stated and right on the money, fast clay. :yeah:


Oh, and @Har-Tru, I reread through the thread and I still find it difficult to determine whom exactly you're addressing.

If it was me, I think that you have me quite mistaken.

I'd not dare minimize the cultural threat that Islam poses to the Western world in the wider sense; my statement above concerned only the more immediate threat to religious freedom (specifically Christian) in the United States.

You're quite right that what you call the "Muslim immigration quota" is much lower in the US than it is in Europe. We are not being "Islamicized" to anywhere near the extent that Europe is. Obviously, this is not true merely as a function of the immigration rate and geographical location; you might say that Americans have a pretty ingrained cultural "resistance" to Islam. That 3000 of our innocent civilians were targeted and murdered 10 years ago in the name of radical Islam obviously doesn't help matters much.
Yes 9/11 didn't help the U.S. and Islam at all. And there have been other attempts since 9/11 and I believe Islam will continue to target the U.S.

Orka_n
11-18-2011, 12:02 AM
You are unwilling to discuss your opinions with people who disagree with you? Wow, just wow.Grow up. :zzz: I said I was unwilling to discuss my opinions (it's more than just theories and philosophical opinions though) with people who's agenda is to explain the irrelevance of my religion to me. It's the most pointless kind of discussions.

Sunset of Age
11-18-2011, 12:21 AM
Yes 9/11 didn't help the U.S. and Islam at all. And there have been other attempts since 9/11 and I believe Islam will continue to target the U.S.

Don't make the mistake of blaming "Islam" for those atrocious deeds, those guys were radicals, idiots, terrorists. :o

Like Har-Tru already explained, Europe has been having a massive influx of Muslim immigrants the past decades, and yes, it's caused quite a bit of troubles (unfortunately he's pretty much spot-on with his post), but in my experience, 99% of muslim people are friendly folks, who just want the same thing as everyone else - a nice home, a warm family, and a steady income.

Don't blame an entire religion for the 1% IDIOTS among them. ;)

This post brought to you by an atheist who still 'believes' that it should be possible to all live together in peace. Okay, I'll admit it, I'm an old hippie. :D

fast_clay
11-18-2011, 01:01 AM
Don't blame an entire religion for the 1% IDIOTS among them.

i agree with your post...

and as far as the scenario har-tru recalled, i actually blame the 99% for not standing up and preaching the same moderation and tolerance that they and their society has 'chosen' to relocate inside... it is the strength inside the 'struggle' of the minority that the majority must stand up, match - and then overcome...

people only push the envelope as far as they are allowed... and sadly, due to the very nature of tolerant societies mood in opposition is built upon the slow boil and erupt in much the same way as a volcano does... aka explosive...

all it took was for one person to stand up and say: 'hang on a minute, let's have a look at what is going on here.'

the gutless 99%

Sunset of Age
11-18-2011, 01:15 AM
and as far as the scenario har-tru recalled, i actually blame the 99% for not standing up and preaching the same moderation and tolerance that they and their society has 'chosen' to relocate inside... it is the strength inside the 'struggle' of the minority that the majority must stand up, match - and then overcome...

people only push the envelope as far as they are allowed... and sadly, due to the very nature of tolerant societies mood in opposition is built upon the slow boil and erupt in much the same way as a volcano does... aka explosive...

all it took was for one person to stand up and say: 'hang on a minute, let's have a look at what is going on here.'

the gutless 99%

Unfortunately, have to agree with you here - to a certain extent.
I can only speak about what's happened in my country in the past, but during the 1980-1990's, 'political correctness' took over.
In stead of demanding immigrants to (1) LEARN THE BLOODY LANGUAGE (this just to start with), our own government even installed official translators in 'Berber' to explain the immigrants their rights when it came to social wellfare, etc.

A massive mistake, and it caused a lot of trouble. Muslim immigrants got 'pampered' a lot, and eventually, it only added up to their troubles. Of course, newcomers do need a lot of help to find their way around, but the fact that there were plenty of immigrants already around in my country for over twenty years still not being able to say any word in Dutch didn't do them well for their integration, not to mention that it also fuelled a lot of 'anti' sentiments among the locals, hence the uprising of a genuine creep called Geert Wilders in our national politics. :o :help:

Fortunately, like I said, the majority of second-generation immigrants are doing real fine right now - especially the ladies. :yeah:
It's getting better right now, I think. And like I said, I've personally never experienced anything 'bad' with our Muslim immigrants, rather the contrary. :)

fast_clay
11-18-2011, 01:43 AM
Unfortunately, have to agree with you here - to a certain extent.
I can only speak about what's happened in my country in the past, but during the 1980-1990's, 'political correctness' took over.
In stead of demanding immigrants to (1) LEARN THE BLOODY LANGUAGE (this just to start with), our own government even installed official translators in 'Berber' to explain the immigrants their rights when it came to social wellfare, etc.

A massive mistake, and it caused a lot of trouble. Muslim immigrants got 'pampered' a lot, and eventually, it only added up to their troubles. Of course, newcomers do need a lot of help to find their way around, but the fact that there were plenty of immigrants already around in my country for over twenty years still not being able to say any word in Dutch didn't do them well for their integration, not to mention that it also fuelled a lot of 'anti' sentiments among the locals, hence the uprising of a genuine creep called Geert Wilders in our national politics. :o :help:

Fortunately, like I said, the majority of second-generation immigrants are doing real fine right now - especially the ladies. :yeah:
It's getting better right now, I think. And like I said, I've personally never experienced anything 'bad' with our Muslim immigrants, rather the contrary. :)

yes the disconnect is first language born... how can you ever begin to feel at home if you do not know how those in your immediate environment think... and, they way a culture think is most easily discovered in the language... i have nothing against a family wishing for relatives to join them, escpecially from war torn countries as there are many facets of cultural integration that are pleasing over time - like kebabs :D speaks for itself...

of course people need help to settle... so, you'd have to give them time to learn the language... but, after reassessment of language skills within 3-6 months of arriving, and then at 6 month intervals thereafter, you place the level and will of integration in the hands of those seeking the new life... failure to show a level and subsequent improvement of level in said nations mother tongue means a cut of initial funding...

money talks, bullshit walks... otherwise it is just one way traffic and you build a new breed of addicts on state welfare who can help themselves but choose not to because they can... because the state breeds an unproductive softness...

Sunset of Age
11-18-2011, 01:54 AM
yes the disconnect is first language born... how can you ever begin to feel at home if you do not know how those in your immediate environment think... and, they way a culture think is most easily discovered in the language... i have nothing against a family wishing for relatives to join them, escpecially from war torn countries as there are many facets of cultural integration that are pleasing over time - like kebabs :D speaks for itself...

of course people need help to settle... so, you'd have to give them time to learn the language... but, after reassessment of language skills within 3-6 months of arriving, and then at 6 month intervals thereafter, you place the level and will of integration in the hands of those seeking the new life... failure to show a level and subsequent improvement of level in said nations mother tongue means a cut of initial funding...

money talks, bullshit walks... otherwise it is just one way traffic and you build a new breed of addicts on state welfare who can help themselves but choose not to because they can... because the state breeds an unproductive softness...

Agreed on all points.
That said, I surely admit that it must be quite a hassle for someone from Morocco to learn Dutch! (I can't even imagine me learning Berber :o) so I think it's quite understandable that the first generation immigrants truly needed their time to do so. :)

Anyways, we're going off-topic here.
I think it all comes down to a certain "wellwillendheid" (oh dear, here's where my knowledge of the English language fails - willfullness? positivity?) to just learn and accept the differences between cultures and backgrounds - from both sides of the fence - that will bring along a certain fruitfullness to all involved when it comes to immigration, from whatever countries, backgrounds, religions or culture.

"Live and let live". :D

Topspindoctor
11-18-2011, 02:07 AM
A fun little fact:

Indeed, several polls have shown that about 50 percent of Americans would not vote for a well-qualified atheist for president

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

No wonder Americans are still laughed at all around the world. The need to have an imaginary friend in 21st century in order to become a president is simply hilarious. Americans would sacrifice their well-being in order to have a bible-humper rather than a suitable person guiding their country. :lol:

Getta
11-18-2011, 02:25 AM
A fun little fact:



Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

No wonder Americans are still laughed at all around the world...

someday, hopefully soon, Americans will wake up

then nobody will laugh at them again

paseo
11-18-2011, 10:27 AM
Yes 9/11 didn't help the U.S. and Islam at all. And there have been other attempts since 9/11 and I believe Islam will continue to target the U.S.

I somewhat believe the conspiracy theories about 9/11 :D. But, I'll doubt there's gonna be enough evidence for it so... moving on. What I want to know is your opinion on the bolded part. Why do you think Islam continue to target the U.S.?

fast_clay
11-18-2011, 12:22 PM
I somewhat believe the conspiracy theories about 9/11 :D. But, I'll doubt there's gonna be enough evidence for it so... moving on. What I want to know is your opinion on the bolded part. Why do you think Islam continue to target the U.S.?

i know the question wasn't directed at me... anyways whatever, i'd like to have a dig...

i would have liked to indulge in conspiracy theories... and, there are some really well developed conspiracy theories... but, i just see the symbolism in the act that is too hard to combat for me...

it wasn't so much an attack on freedoms... or an attack on the US people... and, probably not even so much an attack on western civilisation... and honestly, that's a developed opinion from simply seeing what is in front of me...

where did they fly into...? wall street... world trade centre... anyone with half a brain who wants to see deeper sees it was an attack on the global vending machine that is the US Federal Reserve... who controls the fed...? private bankers... where do you find these bankers...? wall street... and so, attack the very excesses built by these private bankers who print money at interest for the world... the pure hatred for a debt money system that binds the world in slavery...

why not the empire state...? why not fly all four aircraft at the white house...? no... total loss of the message they wished to convey... no... the most successful two aircraft made a shit landing in downtown manhatten...

very reminiscent of the symbolism in fight club where successive bombs go off beneath towers in the financial district thereby reducing the debt to zero... attacking the very root of evil today...

western bankers...

as much as I would like to wonder long and hard about a conspiracy theory, for me the attack was real and far too symbolic of the hatred for the western world's monetary system...

let's be honest, no matter what economic crises befalls the USA it won't matter, they're not going out of business... and so, the attacks will continue upon the USA as long as it holds the global economic switches and levers to suit whatever means...

Har-Tru
11-18-2011, 01:52 PM
reading that makes me feel pretty bad for europe... and it's not the first account i have heard of the like... the revolving door policy does have to stop and stop pretty soon... until at least the latest wave of immigration has had time to age and assimmilate, and once that latest assimmilation has taken place (if it does) only then can the west say - 'right, you come here so have some respect for how your new life was won - here's how it was done, now get on with it and don't f**k up'...

because we all know this: should the unlikely event of a mass migration eastward of western civilation, those westerners would be, not asked, but demanded to tow the line... tow the line... or what...? deportation...? detainment...? dismemberment...? take your pick... the tolerance of the west has been pushed to the absolute limit... but, that tolerance was fought for for so long through the ages that we today have no idea of the cost...

it would appear to me that this very tolerance of the west that I speak of is the very same tolerance that is being abused in order to import a culture which will subvert the natural path of the freedoms that have been won and worth winning for the centuries...

tolerance is a wonderful asset for any culture... probably even worth standing arms for... but, somewhere along the line we became so dumbed down by the expectation for people to do the sensible thing (something that tolerance demands) when entering a new environment...

maybe it's not until something touches you personally, such as the story above, that one could come to realise something is not right... or maybe we are so tolerant that in order to keep the peace we aren't prepared to let on that anything is wrong... 'give it time'...

certainly, as a decent human being, i would be offended in the absolute extreme (i can't even find the superlative to acknowledge how offended i would be) if i were to have the above incident, born from good nature and good nature alone, be shoved back in my face due to a mistake, a problem probably unknown up until that moment by the person committing the act...

what should have been an arena to share and mix culture ('umm, sorry, we don't do that... *washes utensils* here's how we do...?) instead was a reason to cause maximum insult in return...

so where is the tolerance displayed in the above story that *IS* the trademark of modern europe...?

that is not the behaviour of a moderate society... it would not even qualify as a single step backwards... when the pillar of tolerance that has been fought for for the ages in europe after mistake upon mistake is question in such a militant fashion, you then tell me how many steps backward it is when that same tolerance is given but then not returned on your very own soil...

would be like me stepping inside your front door and telling you to get the f*ck out of of your own place because the shoes out the front were not aligned the way i do at my place... pretty handy methodology to acquire vast amounts of real estate actually...

Amen.

Well-stated and right on the money, fast clay. :yeah:


Oh, and @Har-Tru, I reread through the thread and I still find it difficult to determine whom exactly you're addressing.

If it was me, I think that you have me quite mistaken.

I'd not dare minimize the cultural threat that Islam poses to the Western world in the wider sense; my statement above concerned only the more immediate threat to religious freedom (specifically Christian) in the United States.

You're quite right that what you call the "Muslim immigration quota" is much lower in the US than it is in Europe. We are not being "Islamicized" to anywhere near the extent that Europe is. Obviously, this is not true merely as a function of the immigration rate and geographical location; you might say that Americans have a pretty ingrained cultural "resistance" to Islam. That 3000 of our innocent civilians were targeted and murdered 10 years ago in the name of radical Islam obviously doesn't help matters much.

My country was the victim of a devastating terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslim radicals as well, and yet I still think the reaction towards Islam (notice I'm not saying radical Islam, more on this in my following post) in my country and the rest of the Western world hasn't been nearly as assertive as it should have, as fast_clay brilliantly stated.

On another topic, I find the assertion that Christians are being attacked and undermined in their religious freedom in the United States absolutely ridiculous. Clydey made the points I would have made here, so I'll refer to his posts.

Har-Tru
11-18-2011, 02:25 PM
Don't make the mistake of blaming "Islam" for those atrocious deeds, those guys were radicals, idiots, terrorists. :o

Like Har-Tru already explained, Europe has been having a massive influx of Muslim immigrants the past decades, and yes, it's caused quite a bit of troubles (unfortunately he's pretty much spot-on with his post), but in my experience, 99% of muslim people are friendly folks, who just want the same thing as everyone else - a nice home, a warm family, and a steady income.

Don't blame an entire religion for the 1% IDIOTS among them. ;)

This post brought to you by an atheist who still 'believes' that it should be possible to all live together in peace. Okay, I'll admit it, I'm an old hippie. :D

I do. I do blame Islam for the whole terrorism and radicalism.

We have to understand those who crash airplanes into skyscrapers, blow off trains and busses and kill themselves while killing others are NOT the ones that are reading between the lines of their holy book. The so called moderate muslims ARE the ones that have grown enough intellectually to defy and disobey the mandates of their religion. I argue that the terrorists are actually the real, true Muslims.

When Osama Bin Laden commanded his minions to kill westerners, he was not being a cuckoo who used the Quran to fit his intentions. I challenge anybody to tell me which of Bin Laden or a moderate Muslim makes the most natural, straight-forward interpretation of the following excerpts of the Islamic holy book:

Slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out ... if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 2:191

Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you. 2:216

O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you. 9:123

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks. 47:4

Verily, the infidels are your undoubted enemies! 4.101

[4.74] Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward. [4.75] ...fight in the way of Allah... [4.76] Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Satan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Satan...

"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they: But take not friends from their ranks until they do in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and take no friends or helpers from their ranks." 4:89

Islam is a wicked, dangerous religion, and not only because of its concept of Holy War. Islam is, to stay on topic, the main reason for the lack of integration of Muslims in the western world. We are asking people to like us and meddle with us whose religion tells them to fight us.

There is no moderate Islam. There is moderate people who are sensible enough to ignore some of the precepts of their intolerant religion.

Agreed on all points.
That said, I surely admit that it must be quite a hassle for someone from Morocco to learn Dutch! (I can't even imagine me learning Berber :o) so I think it's quite understandable that the first generation immigrants truly needed their time to do so. :)

Anyways, we're going off-topic here.
I think it all comes down to a certain "wellwillendheid" (oh dear, here's where my knowledge of the English language fails - willfullness? positivity?) to just learn and accept the differences between cultures and backgrounds - from both sides of the fence - that will bring along a certain fruitfullness to all involved when it comes to immigration, from whatever countries, backgrounds, religions or culture.

"Live and let live". :D

For the reasons stated above, I have no intention to accept the differences between the Western and the Islamic world. I believe the Western societies are better than the ones in Islamic countries. Yes, better. I'll let the original protagonist of this thread expand (especially from 3:40 on):

NhvhNZC51gY


I'll say it again: let us not be so tolerant that we start tolerating intolerance.

Sunset of Age
11-18-2011, 03:03 PM
I do. I do blame Islam for the whole terrorism and radicalism.

We have to understand those who crash airplanes into skyscrapers, blow off trains and busses and kill themselves while killing others are NOT the ones that are reading between the lines of their holy book. The so called moderate muslims ARE the ones that have grown enough intellectually to defy and disobey the mandates of their religion. I argue that the terrorists are actually the real, true Muslims.

When Osama Bin Laden commanded his minions to kill westerners, he was not being a cuckoo who used the Quran to fit his intentions. I challenge anybody to tell me which of Bin Laden or a moderate Muslim makes the most natural, straight-forward interpretation of the following excerpts of the Islamic holy book:



Islam is a wicked, dangerous religion, and not only because of its concept of Holy War. Islam is, to stay on topic, the main reason for the lack of integration of Muslims in the western world. We are asking people to like us and meddle with us whose religion tells them to fight us.

There is no moderate Islam. There is moderate people who are sensible enough to ignore some of the precepts of their intolerant religion.

Hmmm. I hope it's just a matter of definition of "Islam" here... I find your words very harsh and difficult to accept in the light of so many very friendly people I know and who call themselves Islamic. :shrug:

Just like no sensible Christian takes the plenty of dreadful lines present in the Bible literally (or so I hope! - Deuteronomium, for instance? :help: :o) I sure hope - and think - that no sensible Muslim does the same with those equally dreadful lines in the Quran.

For the reasons stated above, I have no intention to accept the differences between the Western and the Islamic world. I believe the Western societies are better than the ones in Islamic countries.

Be sure I'm happy to live over here in Western Europe in stead of in Saudi Arabia, for obvious reasons - but still isn't a lot of the "horror stories" we read and hear about Islamic countries also quite a bit of propaganda? Two friends of mine (one of them a very blonde woman) actually travelled through Iran a couple of years ago. They were very pleasantly surprised to find out that the locals over there were in fact very warm-hearted and welcoming people. I just cannot believe that all of those people are the hatred-filled folks like you say... perhaps I'm naive, I don't know.

I'll say it again: let us not be so tolerant that we start tolerating intolerance.

This I fully agree with, let there be no misunderstanding about that.
I raise my voice loud and clear when I hear of certain Muslims refusing to take a job (in stead living from social welfare, payed for them by us!) because they refuse to shake hands with a female human resources manager. Yep, that used to be tolerated in my country not that long ago.
Fortunately, this kind of rubbish is now over.

Har-Tru
11-18-2011, 03:09 PM
Hmmm. I hope it's just a matter of definition of "Islam" here... I find your words very harsh and difficult to accept in the light of so many very friendly people I know and who call themselves Islamic. :shrug:

Just like no sensible Christian takes the plenty of dreadful lines present in the Bible literally (or so I hope! - Deuteronomium, for instance? :help: :o) I sure hope - and think - that no sensible Muslim does the same with those equally dreadful lines in the Quran.

But that is precisely my point: those people, of which I know many myself, are less Muslim or Christian than the so-called fundamentalists. They have decided to ignore or challenge part of their religion. They are not friendly because of their religion, they are friendly in spite of their religion.

Be sure I'm happy to live over here in Western Europe in stead of in Saoudi Arabia, for obvious reasons - but still isn't a lot of the "horror stories" we read and hear about Islamic countries also quite a bit of propoganda? Two friends of mine (one of them a very blonde woman) actually travelled through Iran a couple of years ago. They were very pleasantly surprised to find out that the locals over there were in fact very warm-hearted and welcoming people. I just cannot believe that all of those people are the hatred-filled folks like you say... perhaps I'm naive, I don't know.

I never said such thing.

Sunset of Age
11-18-2011, 03:14 PM
But that is precisely my point: those people, of which I know many myself, are less Muslim or Christian than the so-called fundamentalists. They have decided to ignore or challenge part of their religion. They are not friendly because of their religion, they are friendly in spite of their religion.

Isn't that about always the case? ;)
So it is a matter of definition then.

I never said such thing.

Sorry if I worded it wrong, but you claimed that true Muslims are always the fundamentalists. I know for a fact that these people call themselves 'true Muslims' and they are most certainly not fundamentalist terrorists.

Getta
11-18-2011, 03:24 PM
There is no moderate Islam. There is moderate people who are sensible enough to ignore some of the precepts of their intolerant religion.

is there a moderate Christianity?

are there any moderate theists that don't believe that faith is a virtue?

I'll say it again: let us not be so tolerant that we start tolerating intolerance.

David Cameron's recent start-up push (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994), active/muscular liberalism instead of passive tolerance.

and, David Miliband's withering (?) riposte (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/28/david-miliband-attacks-david-cameron).

Mjau!
11-18-2011, 06:07 PM
I do. I do blame Islam for the whole terrorism and radicalism.

We have to understand those who crash airplanes into skyscrapers, blow off trains and busses and kill themselves while killing others are NOT the ones that are reading between the lines of their holy book. The so called moderate muslims ARE the ones that have grown enough intellectually to defy and disobey the mandates of their religion. I argue that the terrorists are actually the real, true Muslims.

When Osama Bin Laden commanded his minions to kill westerners, he was not being a cuckoo who used the Quran to fit his intentions. I challenge anybody to tell me which of Bin Laden or a moderate Muslim makes the most natural, straight-forward interpretation of the following excerpts of the Islamic holy book:

Islam is a wicked, dangerous religion, and not only because of its concept of Holy War. Islam is, to stay on topic, the main reason for the lack of integration of Muslims in the western world. We are asking people to like us and meddle with us whose religion tells them to fight us.

There is no moderate Islam. There is moderate people who are sensible enough to ignore some of the precepts of their intolerant religion.

For the reasons stated above, I have no intention to accept the differences between the Western and the Islamic world. I believe the Western societies are better than the ones in Islamic countries. Yes, better. I'll let the original protagonist of this thread expand (especially from 3:40 on):

NhvhNZC51gY

I'll say it again: let us not be so tolerant that we start tolerating intolerance.

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."

“Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed."

“The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive.”

“Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usama and Taliban and then this incident happened.”

“Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the US secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the US Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat.”

”The Western media is unleashing such a baseless propaganda, which make us surprise but it reflects on what is in their hearts and gradually they themselves become captive of this propaganda. They become afraid of it and begin to cause harm to themselves."

“Terror is the most dreaded weapon in modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people. It can add fear and helplessness in the psyche of the people of Europe and the United States. It means that what the enemies of the United States cannot do, its media is doing that. You can understand as to what will be the performance of the nation in a war, which suffers from fear and helplessness.”

“I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom.”

- OBL

The Bush administration advised the media against airing this tape because they suggested it contained coded messages to terrorists.

If the quran is as contradictory as the bible, you can probably find the very opposite of all those hateful quotes you higlighted. Why must a "true muslim" reject the message of tolerance and love (I assume that there is one...) and accept the message of hatered and intolerance? Why not the other way? :shrug:

Har-Tru
11-18-2011, 06:48 PM
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."

“Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed."

“The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive.”

“Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usama and Taliban and then this incident happened.”

“Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the US secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the US Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat.”

”The Western media is unleashing such a baseless propaganda, which make us surprise but it reflects on what is in their hearts and gradually they themselves become captive of this propaganda. They become afraid of it and begin to cause harm to themselves."

“Terror is the most dreaded weapon in modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people. It can add fear and helplessness in the psyche of the people of Europe and the United States. It means that what the enemies of the United States cannot do, its media is doing that. You can understand as to what will be the performance of the nation in a war, which suffers from fear and helplessness.”

“I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom.”

- OBL

The Bush administration advised the media against airing this tape because they suggested it contained coded messages to terrorists.

If the quran is as contradictory as the bible, you can probably find the very opposite of all those hateful quotes you higlighted. Why must a "true muslim" reject the message of tolerance and love (I assume that there is one...) and accept the message of hatered and intolerance? Why not the other way? :shrug:

Because religions, like Islam in this case, claim absolute knowledge and divine perfection. Contradictions such as the one you depict are not compatible with perfection. You can't cherrypick from holy scripture. Either you take the whole package or ignore it all.

As to the Bin Laden conspiracy, proof or I'll pass, too busy.

buddyholly
11-18-2011, 07:02 PM
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

No wonder Americans are still laughed at all around the world. The need to have an imaginary friend in 21st century in order to become a president is simply hilarious. Americans would sacrifice their well-being in order to have a bible-humper rather than a suitable person guiding their country. :lol:

But if you eliminate all the countries where it is also impossible to become president without an imaginary friend, how many people are left to laugh?

Not many. What other democracies have been led by an atheist?

buddyholly
11-18-2011, 07:08 PM
Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."



Are non-Muslims innocents? Or is it true that the Koran recommends killing all non-believers?

Can a Muslim renounce his faith once he becomes an adult and can think for himself? Or are the accounts true of people being killed in some countries for changing religion?

I am not about to read the book for myself.

Har-Tru
11-18-2011, 07:12 PM
Isn't that about always the case? ;)
So it is a matter of definition then.

It's not a matter of definition. Christianity and Islam claim absolute truth and perfection. Once you take one precept out of scripture or ignore it, you're no longer a true Christian or Muslim.

Sorry if I worded it wrong, but you claimed that true Muslims are always the fundamentalists. I know for a fact that these people call themselves 'true Muslims' and they are most certainly not fundamentalist terrorists.

They might call themselves true Muslims, but they are not. And it is a good thing they are not!

is there a moderate Christianity?

are there any moderate theists that don't believe that faith is a virtue?

No.

David Cameron's recent start-up push (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994), active/muscular liberalism instead of passive tolerance.

and, David Miliband's withering (?) riposte (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/28/david-miliband-attacks-david-cameron).[/QUOTE]

That was brilliant from Cameron. Well said, kid!

Miliband is ranting as usually.

Stensland
11-18-2011, 08:49 PM
maher has good writers and his delivery on his show is spot-on but i can't help it, he seems like an asshole personally. obviously he's much more intellectually secure than some dim-wit blond bombshell though, so this isn't even a contest. he handled the situation like a boss.

Mjau!
11-18-2011, 09:22 PM
Because religions, like Islam in this case, claim absolute knowledge and divine perfection. Contradictions such as the one you depict are not compatible with perfection. You can't cherrypick from holy scripture. Either you take the whole package or ignore it all.

As to the Bin Laden conspiracy, proof or I'll pass, too busy.

But you must cherry-pick if it is contradictory! There's no way around it. You cannot take the whole package because it's conflicting. Something has to be ignored.

It's what Bin Laden said in a tape released 2-3 weeks after 9/11.

The confession tape that was supposedly found in a house in Kandahar, has been called an obvious fake by Bin Laden expert, Bruce Lawrence (http://www.radiodujour.com/people/lawrence_bruce/mp3/20070216_kevinbarrett_brucelawrence_02.mp3). In it, "Usama" writes with his right hand, despite being left handed and praises hijackers who weren't really hijackers, because they were still alive and had nothing to do with the attacks. He doesn't really look much like the real Bin Laden either.

http://www.radiodujour.com/people/lawrence_bruce/img/190207fatnose.jpg

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/1723/oblfake.png

Clearly not the same person.

buddyholly
11-18-2011, 09:44 PM
But you must cherry-pick if it is contradictory! There's no way around it. You cannot take the whole package because it's conflicting. Something has to be ignored.



If the package is riddled with conflicts and inconsistencies, then don't waste your time on it. Throw it in the garbage.

Sunset of Age
11-18-2011, 09:54 PM
It's not a matter of definition. Christianity and Islam claim absolute truth and perfection. Once you take one precept out of scripture or ignore it, you're no longer a true Christian or Muslim.

Well you already know my opinions on religions in general. ;)
However, I see no positives at all in further pointing the finger and possibly adding more fuel to the flames - when a vast majority of folks come across as friendly and positive, I see no objection to be friendly and positive myself towards them, whether they worship God, Allah, Jaweh, Budda, Father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy - or even are atheists, like myself. Whatever rocks your bloody boat, as long as we're able to get along, no problem.

I'd like to emphasize that despite the occasional havoc about certain incidents that happen concerning 'Muslims' in my country, the truth is that the massive majority of our Muslim immigrants are actually doing rather well over here. It's most often just a bunch of rotten apples in the basket that give the entire community a bad rap, and imho, that's most undeserved.

Perhaps I'm just being naive...

[EDIT]: I may have just outed myself as an 'agnost' in Richard Dawson's definition of it. Which may well be true. I remember well some time ago that I posted somewhere on this site that I feel myself as being an agnost when feeling optimistic (you may read this as: being PC :smoke:), but a full-blown atheist when feeling realistic. Oops. Hit me with this. :hatoff:

buddyholly
11-18-2011, 09:57 PM
maher has good writers and his delivery on his show is spot-on but i can't help it, he seems like an asshole personally. obviously he's much more intellectually secure than some dim-wit blond bombshell though, so this isn't even a contest. he handled the situation like a boss.

I'm surprised that you would so easily stereotype a blonde, hot though she is, as a bimbo. She is as well educated as Maher. You have fallen into the typical MTF habit of labelling anyone who expresses a view on the right as dim-wit. Clearly the bimbo on that show is Goldberg, even if she does not fit the blonde bombshell stereotype.

Stensland
11-18-2011, 10:02 PM
i don't know hasselbeck. i was just going by the usual media procedure to put some eye candy on talk shows. sexy but dumb. oh, and sean hannity likes her a lot, speaks volumes as well.

Mjau!
11-18-2011, 10:11 PM
“Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the US secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the US Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat.”

This subject has been covered by the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, Gary Webb and the former director of CIA operations in Angola, John Stockwell.

http://thefilmarchived.blogspot.com/2010/09/gary-webb-on-dark-alliance-cia-contras.html

http://thefilmarchived.blogspot.com/2010/09/secret-wars-of-cia-john-stockwell.html

You should also research the Iran-Contra scandal, on which the former CIA director, George H. W. Bush commented, "If the American people ever find out what we have done, they will chase us down the streets and lynch us."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35KcYgMPiIM
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3122chalabi_ghorbanifar.html

CIA jet crashed with 4 tonnes of cocaine :o
UQNSoOX-dcw

Brent Scowcroft, who was on the Tower Commission to investigate illegal arms sales, was later the chairman of the ATC and involved in illegal arms sales himself. The lead investigator into Iran-Contra who gave most key suspects immunity (and they've done quite well for themselves), was Lee Hamilton. He was later chosen to be part of the 9/11 commission. A couple of the Iran-Contra criminals, Leeden and Ghorbanifar, had a role in falsifying iraqi-WMD evidence as well (the Niger forgeries). This is layed out in 'War by Deception'.

habibko
11-18-2011, 11:12 PM
Human nature is the problem, Topspindoctor, not religion.

the problem of what, evil? human suffering? it certainly isn't the only source of blight and evil in our world, there is plenty of natural evil and human suffering caused by nature itself

in your view of the world, God is the originator of this evil whether it's natural or human-induced - as the creator of human nature is obviously God - therefore that's where an honest theist should direct the blame

on the subject of natural evil, David Attenborough put it most aptly:

"My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm* that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy"

*referring to the Loa loa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loa_loa)

of course this is easily remedied using the opium of the people; "it's all part of God's will", "it's all part of the plan", "God works in mysterious ways", "everything will be corrected in the Hereafter" down to the truly wicked "you are born a sinner", "who are you to question God?"

and yes, most religions are very much a problem once taken seriously and literally, and most dangerous when those who take it seriously and literally assume power over a nation or a society

Sunset of Age
11-18-2011, 11:16 PM
of course this is easily remedied using the opium of the people; "it's all part of God's will", "it's all part of the plan", "God works in mysterious ways", "everything will be corrected in the Hereafter" down to the truly wicked "you are born a sinner", "who are you to question God?"

and yes, most religions are very much a problem once taken seriously and literally, and most dangerous when those who take it seriously and literally have assume power over a nation or a society

Didn't want to quote all of your post Habib, but well said indeed. :yeah:

habibko
11-19-2011, 12:12 AM
I do. I do blame Islam for the whole terrorism and radicalism.

We have to understand those who crash airplanes into skyscrapers, blow off trains and busses and kill themselves while killing others are NOT the ones that are reading between the lines of their holy book. The so called moderate muslims ARE the ones that have grown enough intellectually to defy and disobey the mandates of their religion. I argue that the terrorists are actually the real, true Muslims.

I'm sure it wasn't intentional on your part but surely you realize terrorism isn't an Islamic invention nor does Islam hold monopoly over terrorism and radicalism, all violence-ready religions and ideologies in genenral have led to acts of terrorism, while Islam is the hottest trend of the modern world, it is not the real root of terrorism, ideological fanaticism is in my opinion

When Osama Bin Laden commanded his minions to kill westerners, he was not being a cuckoo who used the Quran to fit his intentions. I challenge anybody to tell me which of Bin Laden or a moderate Muslim makes the most natural, straight-forward interpretation of the following excerpts of the Islamic holy book:

all Muslims will tell you those excerpts only apply in a warfare situation, the Quran clearly states:

60:8 As for such [of the unbelievers] as do not fight against you on account of [your] faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for, verily, God loves those who act equitably.

60:9 God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of [your] faith, and drive you forth from your homelands, or aid [others] in driving you forth: and as for those [from among you] who turn towards them in friendship; it is they, they who are truly wrongdoers!

the problem lies on how to define a "warfare" situation, Bin Laden has used the political involvements of the U.S. in Muslim countries to declare that Muslims are in a "warfare" situation with the U.S., therefore all violent passages in the Quran automatically apply, and then he used further interpretations of Islamic theorists such as Sayyid Qutb to justify targeting innocents and civilian casualties

so a moderate Muslims will tell you the problem isn't inherently Islamic, but it depends on how you apply them in a political context, this isn't unique to Islam but has happened within many ideologies and religions and still does

Islam is a wicked, dangerous religion, and not only because of its concept of Holy War. Islam is, to stay on topic, the main reason for the lack of integration of Muslims in the western world. We are asking people to like us and meddle with us whose religion tells them to fight us.

There is no moderate Islam. There is moderate people who are sensible enough to ignore some of the precepts of their intolerant religion.


For the reasons stated above, I have no intention to accept the differences between the Western and the Islamic world. I believe the Western societies are better than the ones in Islamic countries. Yes, better. I'll let the original protagonist of this thread expand (especially from 3:40 on):

NhvhNZC51gY


I'll say it again: let us not be so tolerant that we start tolerating intolerance.

you will not erase Muslims/Islam with this way of addressing the issue, we have to deal with reality as it is not as we want it to be, this hatred speech towards Islam serves to isolate and alienate the moderate Muslims who do believe in their religion but don't agree with the violent version of it

I really do agree with the essence of what you say, but I don't think the "Dawkins" delivery will do more good to the world, there is no easy solution to this problem, this way of thinking will one day shut Europe and the civilized world to anyone "Muslim" (if that's even possible), think of the implications of such racial profiling and religious/cultural segregation

Har-Tru
11-19-2011, 08:34 AM
I'm sure it wasn't intentional on your part but surely you realize terrorism isn't an Islamic invention nor does Islam hold monopoly over terrorism and radicalism, all violence-ready religions and ideologies in genenral have led to acts of terrorism, while Islam is the hottest trend of the modern world, it is not the real root of terrorism, ideological fanaticism is in my opinion

Ideological fanatism is fueled by Islam. But of course it isn't the only source of terrorism or radicalism.


you will not erase Muslims/Islam with this way of addressing the issue, we have to deal with reality as it is not as we want it to be, this hatred speech towards Islam serves to isolate and alienate the moderate Muslims who do believe in their religion but don't agree with the violent version of it

I really do agree with the essence of what you say, but I don't think the "Dawkins" delivery will do more good to the world, there is no easy solution to this problem, this way of thinking will one day shut Europe and the civilized world to anyone "Muslim" (if that's even possible), think of the implications of such racial profiling and religious/cultural segregation

You're making too many assumptions... I have no intention to walk to a Muslim and tell him his religion is stinking shit. I am posting in a mostly liberal-oriented and Western internet forum where I can freely fire my guns.

Har-Tru
11-19-2011, 08:54 AM
Well you already know my opinions on religions in general. ;)
However, I see no positives at all in further pointing the finger and possibly adding more fuel to the flames - when a vast majority of folks come across as friendly and positive, I see no objection to be friendly and positive myself towards them, whether they worship God, Allah, Jaweh, Budda, Father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy - or even are atheists, like myself. Whatever rocks your bloody boat, as long as we're able to get along, no problem.

I understand your approach, and we certainly mustn't start a sort of aggressive dialectical humanistic crusade to try and convert any Muslim, but the truth is, the way I see it religion is wrong... it limits rational thinking, it breeds intolerance, it fosters absolutist thinking... I hold the view that the world would be a better place without religion. By holding that view, I wouldn't be doing the right thing if I didn't try to convince people that that is the case. I'm not about forcing anything down anyone's throats, that is stupid and ineffective, nor will I go house by house preaching my message like many religious people, but I'll take any chance to express my views and try to raise awareness, like others raised mine.

I'd like to emphasize that despite the occasional havoc about certain incidents that happen concerning 'Muslims' in my country, the truth is that the massive majority of our Muslim immigrants are actually doing rather well over here. It's most often just a bunch of rotten apples in the basket that give the entire community a bad rap, and imho, that's most undeserved.

Are they?

Do they often marry outside of their community? I'm talking about the second and third-generation ones, not the first generation. Do they meddle with the local Dutch, and go out with them etc.? Do they take active part in the Dutch social, cultural and political scene?

paseo
11-19-2011, 12:57 PM
i know the question wasn't directed at me... anyways whatever, i'd like to have a dig...

i would have liked to indulge in conspiracy theories... and, there are some really well developed conspiracy theories... but, i just see the symbolism in the act that is too hard to combat for me...

it wasn't so much an attack on freedoms... or an attack on the US people... and, probably not even so much an attack on western civilisation... and honestly, that's a developed opinion from simply seeing what is in front of me...

where did they fly into...? wall street... world trade centre... anyone with half a brain who wants to see deeper sees it was an attack on the global vending machine that is the US Federal Reserve... who controls the fed...? private bankers... where do you find these bankers...? wall street... and so, attack the very excesses built by these private bankers who print money at interest for the world... the pure hatred for a debt money system that binds the world in slavery...

why not the empire state...? why not fly all four aircraft at the white house...? no... total loss of the message they wished to convey... no... the most successful two aircraft made a shit landing in downtown manhatten...

very reminiscent of the symbolism in fight club where successive bombs go off beneath towers in the financial district thereby reducing the debt to zero... attacking the very root of evil today...

western bankers...

as much as I would like to wonder long and hard about a conspiracy theory, for me the attack was real and far too symbolic of the hatred for the western world's monetary system...

let's be honest, no matter what economic crises befalls the USA it won't matter, they're not going out of business... and so, the attacks will continue upon the USA as long as it holds the global economic switches and levers to suit whatever means...

Good theory. Probable.

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."

“Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed."

“The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive.”

“Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usama and Taliban and then this incident happened.”

“Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the US secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the US Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat.”

”The Western media is unleashing such a baseless propaganda, which make us surprise but it reflects on what is in their hearts and gradually they themselves become captive of this propaganda. They become afraid of it and begin to cause harm to themselves."

“Terror is the most dreaded weapon in modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people. It can add fear and helplessness in the psyche of the people of Europe and the United States. It means that what the enemies of the United States cannot do, its media is doing that. You can understand as to what will be the performance of the nation in a war, which suffers from fear and helplessness.”

“I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom.”

- OBL

The Bush administration advised the media against airing this tape because they suggested it contained coded messages to terrorists.

If the quran is as contradictory as the bible, you can probably find the very opposite of all those hateful quotes you higlighted. Why must a "true muslim" reject the message of tolerance and love (I assume that there is one...) and accept the message of hatered and intolerance? Why not the other way? :shrug:

This actually supports fast_clay's theory.

Because religions, like Islam in this case, claim absolute knowledge and divine perfection. Contradictions such as the one you depict are not compatible with perfection. You can't cherrypick from holy scripture. Either you take the whole package or ignore it all.

As to the Bin Laden conspiracy, proof or I'll pass, too busy.

If the package is riddled with conflicts and inconsistencies, then don't waste your time on it. Throw it in the garbage.

...

all Muslims will tell you those excerpts only apply in a warfare situation, the Quran clearly states:


the problem lies on how to define a "warfare" situation,.....

habibko's response is very solid.

the problem of what, evil? human suffering? it certainly isn't the only source of blight and evil in our world, there is plenty of natural evil and human suffering caused by nature itself

in your view of the world, God is the originator of this evil whether it's natural or human-induced - as the creator of human nature is obviously God - therefore that's where an honest theist should direct the blame

on the subject of natural evil, David Attenborough put it most aptly:

"My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm* that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy"

*referring to the Loa loa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loa_loa)

of course this is easily remedied using the opium of the people; "it's all part of God's will", "it's all part of the plan", "God works in mysterious ways", "everything will be corrected in the Hereafter" down to the truly wicked "you are born a sinner", "who are you to question God?"

and yes, most religions are very much a problem once taken seriously and literally, and most dangerous when those who take it seriously and literally assume power over a nation or a society

The question is a very strong one. But, like all such questions, it was made under the assumption that we humans, or the human brain specifically, can understand absolutely anything and everything. Do our brain really have no limit? Are we really the smartest being in the universe? For example, That worm can't even comprehend life outside the child's eyeball, let alone understand how humans think. The distance of ability to understand reality, between us humans and the worm is just so significant that no matter how hard that worm tries, it would never understand our concept of good and evil.

Now let's put humans in the worms position and God in the human's. Multiply the distance by a big number. There's no way we would even have a clue on how God thinks. We can think that God is evil, but is it really true? Or is it just because we don't understand? If I were to have a God, I would want that God to be that much superior than me.

Do I sound preachy? If I do, sorry. Even making this simple argument stretched my english :p

Filo V.
11-19-2011, 01:01 PM
So "that bitch" got taken out of the title. I ain't complaining. It made me uncomfortable.

buddyholly
11-19-2011, 01:09 PM
Now nobody will click on the thread - the thrill is gone.

Lopez
11-19-2011, 02:06 PM
I'm surprised that you would so easily stereotype a blonde, hot though she is, as a bimbo. She is as well educated as Maher. You have fallen into the typical MTF habit of labelling anyone who expresses a view on the right as dim-wit. Clearly the bimbo on that show is Goldberg, even if she does not fit the blonde bombshell stereotype.

Sherri Shepherd is the dumbest of them all. When asked "Is the Earth flat" she said "I don't know". :lol:

But are you suggesting that Hasselbeck is intelligent? Or rather that she's on equal footing with Maher? Maher did graduate from Cornell, she from Boston College.

I don't think that anyone from the right is a dimwit since I'm right-wing myself (by Finnish standards, which would probably be leftist in US :p), but Hasselbeck seems to be misinformed on some topics and not very bright in my opinion.

habibko
11-19-2011, 02:08 PM
The question is a very strong one. But, like all such questions, it was made under the assumption that we humans, or the human brain specifically, can understand absolutely anything and everything. Do our brain really have no limit? Are we really the smartest being in the universe? For example, That worm can't even comprehend life outside the child's eyeball, let alone understand how humans think. The distance of ability to understand reality, between us humans and the worm is just so significant that no matter how hard that worm tries, it would never understand our concept of good and evil.

Now let's put humans in the worms position and God in the human's. Multiply the distance by a big number. There's no way we would even have a clue on how God thinks. We can think that God is evil, but is it really true? Or is it just because we don't understand? If I were to have a God, I would want that God to be that much superior than me.

Do I sound preachy? If I do, sorry. Even making this simple argument stretched my english :p

according to the Bible we are supposed to be created in his image and likeness, a God, btw, that cares so much about how we view him that he makes it an eternal damnation matter to get it right, actually he cares so much even about who we love and hate, who we sleep with and how much we should keep and take from our external genital organs, sounds too human to me

we have no other way to judge except by our standards and point of view, I haven't read a verse that says "look guys what you see as evil actions is actually good actions, don't judge me by your views of good and evil, that Loa loa is fending that child's eye against extreme agony that you don't know about, verily God is all good"

ok maybe that was too ungodly, how about: "the Loa loa is the work of Satan"

the religious never run out of excuses to justify troubling moral issues in the world, I didn't run through all of them, but you can add the "you just can't understand" to them

Lopez
11-19-2011, 02:18 PM
You are forcing your religious beliefs on someone when those beliefs inspire a political agenda. It is no secret that gay marriage is opposed almost exclusively for religious reasons. Such things are unconstitutional.



When the pledge includes the phrase 'One nation under God' the state is endorsing a religion. Again, its place in the pledge is unconstitutional.



Atheists are the least trusted 'group' in the USA. You are either ignorant or lying to yourself if you do not think that atheists are persecuted in America. It is common knowledge and widely reported. There is a reason why politicians in the USA do not come out as atheists, even though I am certain many are. It is almost impossible to be elected unless you have an invisible friend. The Presidency is certainly not even close to being a realistic goal for the areligious.

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-akron/atheists-america-the-nation-s-least-trusted-group



Of course it is more practical to speak broadly, since you have no specific examples.

Allow me to correct you. Secularists tend to tell the truth and keep religion out of science classes. Religion is not science and should not be taught as such. Are you telling me that there is no opportunity to study religion in educational institutions? Think carefully before answering, as I am eager to bury you with the facts.



Fair enough. These should get you started. Happy debunking.

"If however the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death..." Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head;" 1 Corinthians 11:9, 10.

"Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting to the Lord." Colossians 3:18



Poor analogy. By all means deconstruct the facts that support my 'careless, insulting, unsupported assertion'.



I'm looking forward to watching you tie yourself in knots while attempting to reconcile this view with the facts.



Of course it changes, since there is no absolute good and evil. The moral zeitgeist is always tentative. What is evil to you is not evil to someone else. Good and evil are as indefinable as crime.



If morality is absolute, actions are either right or wrong no matter where or when they take place. You cannot claim absolute morality exists and in the same breath advocate a multicultural, relativist view. Absolute morality means that if an action is evil in the USA, for example, it is also evil in Pakistan.

Yes, human agency is always informed and determined by environment, but absolute morality is constant. Again, if god is perfect and he asserted that homosexuality was wrong thousands of years ago, it then follows that it must be wrong today. This applies to all moral statements within the bible.



You are not describing absolute morality. You are describing moral relativism, which is context sensitive. You seem to be utterly confused at this point. You say that absolute morality is influenced by culture and then go on to describe an example of moral relativism to back your claim.



Give me an example of a moral absolute.

It must be annoying when your arguments are not answered Clydey. I know the feeling.

paseo
11-19-2011, 02:51 PM
according to the Bible we are supposed to be created in his image and likeness, a God, btw, that cares so much about how we view him that he makes it an eternal damnation matter to get it right, actually he cares so much even about who we love and hate, who we sleep with and how much we should keep and take from our external genital organs, sounds too human to me

we have no other way to judge except by our standards and point of view, I haven't read a verse that says "look guys what you see as evil actions is actually good actions, don't judge me by your views of good and evil, that Loa loa is fending that child's eye against extreme agony that you don't know about, verily God is all good"

ok maybe that was too ungodly, how about: "the Loa loa is the work of Satan"

the religious never run out of excuses to justify troubling moral issues in the world, I didn't run through all of them, but you can add the "you just can't understand" to them

This is where the argument get stuck, I guess. Atheists demand something real, something we can understand. While theist simply believe and accept that we can't understand all of it because God is too superior to us. To each his own.

habibko
11-19-2011, 03:00 PM
This is where the argument get stuck, I guess. Atheists demand something real, something we can understand. While theist simply believe and accept that we can't understand all of it because God is too superior to us. To each his own.

it doesn't mean that both sides hold equal merit and value, theists don't apply this mode of thinking on the rest of their life matters, outside of religion they always "demand something real, something we can understand", atheists have a more consistent world view and deal with facts and what we know, not what we imagine or wish to be true

it's appalling how many double standards are involved simply evoking the word "faith"

Clydey
11-19-2011, 03:27 PM
It must be annoying when your arguments are not answered Clydey. I know the feeling.

You get used to it eventually. The man begs me to engage him properly and doea a runner when I comply.

Mjau!
11-19-2011, 05:29 PM
This actually supports fast_clay's theory.

Eh, :no:, it doesn't. :rolleyes:


:rolleyes:


:rolleyes:


:rolleyes:


:rolleyes:


:cuckoo:

buddyholly
11-19-2011, 05:41 PM
Atheists are the least trusted 'group' in the USA. You are either ignorant or lying to yourself if you do not think that atheists are persecuted in America. It is common knowledge and widely reported. There is a reason why politicians in the USA do not come out as atheists, even though I am certain many are. It is almost impossible to be elected unless you have an invisible friend. The Presidency is certainly not even close to being a realistic goal for the areligious.



Can you give an example of atheists in the US being harassed or oppressed? Although I am in Canada, I do not feel persecuted.

If most people would not vote for an atheist, that is unfortunate, but it is not persecution. Persecution would be a law prohibiting atheists from running for office. So I suspect atheists are no more persecuted in the US than they are in Scotland.

In the same post you also felt the need to point out that the pledge says ''One Nation Under God.'' Think about the injustice of that next time you stand for the British National anthem.

Seingeist
11-19-2011, 05:56 PM
You get used to it eventually. The man begs me to engage him properly and doea a runner when I comply.

:lol: at bolded portion.

You have not even begun to do this.

More than anyone in these forums, you are purely mendacious and polemical and lack any ounce of intellectual honesty and integrity. You intentionally misconstrue and misunderstand me in order only to persist in your hostility and disagreement, and I think that anyone here with any discernment can see this (for the most recent example: you cannot possibly be as mistaken as you appear to be about the difference between absolute and relative morality, but you were intent on missing my point and constructing some disagreement there too, so you mis-defined them and argued against a phantasm).

I simply have no interest in wasting another minute of my time on you. As you might be able to tell, some of my lengthy posts take a decent amount of time and thought to compose. When the response to these sincere posts is to deliberately misrepresent, misunderstand, and divert them, I conclude that it just isn't worth my time or trouble. :shrug:

You actually have succeeded at something, Clydey, and that's having made me regret ever bothering to address you as though you were a sincere interlocutor.

For an example of how to properly to comport yourself if you actually wish to discuss anything with me in the future, look to buddyholly. BH disagrees with me as strongly as you do on all matters metaphysical and religious, and though he is often more rude than he needs to be, he never gives me the impression that he is being deliberately dishonest and diversionary. Buddyholly has demonstrated that he is more interested in actually understanding what I have to say and engaging me there than in searching for any possible way to pull a straw man out of my posts and attack it. This is a key difference when it comes to having a mature conversation.

Re: Old Testament verses. Congratulations Clydey. You've cherry-picked a few verses whose context and meaning you do not even begin to comprehend, and what's more, you don't care to comprehend them. Your purposes are purely polemical, not instructive. As you might appreciate, I am less than eager to launch into a full-scale discussion involving Scriptural exegesis and historical Jewish culture with someone who will not listen to a word of it anyway. Perhaps you will get lucky, though, and someone who as not as insincere as you are will start a thread along these lines, and I would be happy to discuss it with them.

Of course, I will concede to you the ounce of credit that you deserve for bothering to dig up some verses to put behind your otherwise bald assertion, even if they were simply an attempt to bait me into wasting more of my time with you. Congratulations for dropping in a few verses, and my condolences for the fact that I did not offer you more fodder to ignore, misrepresent, and attack. :wavey:

It must be annoying when your arguments are not answered Clydey. I know the feeling.

Cry me a river, Lopez. I already explained to you why it was no longer practical to continue the discussion in the Evolution thread. Even in this very thread, as I pointed out, you misconstrued my points and position there. And take my word for it: there is nothing more "annoying" than offering post after laborious post only to watch their content go entirely misunderstood and/or skewed.

It would be more constructive for me to sculpt elaborate clay figurines and then chuck them off my balcony and watch them shatter to pieces in the parking lot below.

Clydey
11-19-2011, 09:19 PM
:lol: at bolded portion.

You have not even begun to do this.

More than anyone in these forums, you are purely mendacious and polemical and lack any ounce of intellectual honesty and integrity. You intentionally misconstrue and misunderstand me in order only to persist in your hostility and disagreement, and I think that anyone here with any discernment can see this (for the most recent example: you cannot possibly be as mistaken as you appear to be about the difference between absolute and relative morality, but you were intent on missing my point and constructing some disagreement there too, so you mis-defined them and argued against a phantasm).

By all means show me the error of my ways. In what way did I misconstrue some very basic sociological terms? It's not like my academic career revolves around the subject.

Re: Old Testament verses. Congratulations Clydey. You've cherry-picked a few verses whose context and meaning you do not even begin to comprehend, and what's more, you don't care to comprehend them. Your purposes are purely polemical, not instructive. As you might appreciate, I am less than eager to launch into a full-scale discussion involving Scriptural exegesis and historical Jewish culture with someone who will not listen to a word of it anyway. Perhaps you will get lucky, though, and someone who as not as insincere as you are will start a thread along these lines, and I would be happy to discuss it with them.

Cherry-picked? It wasn't exactly like finding the needle in a haystack.

I look forward to you putting those blatantly misogynistic passages into a context that even approaches acceptability.

Of course, I will concede to you the ounce of credit that you deserve for bothering to dig up some verses to put behind your otherwise bald assertion, even if they were simply an attempt to bait me into wasting more of my time with you. Congratulations for dropping in a few verses, and my condolences for the fact that I did not offer you more fodder to ignore, misrepresent, and attack. :wavey:

This is what it looks like when someone knocks over their King, ladies and gents.

Cry me a river, Lopez. I already explained to you why it was no longer practical to continue the discussion in the Evolution thread. Even in this very thread, as I pointed out, you misconstrued my points and position there. And take my word for it: there is nothing more "annoying" than offering post after laborious post only to watch their content go entirely misunderstood and/or skewed.

It would be more constructive for me to sculpt elaborate clay figurines and then chuck them off my balcony and watch them shatter to pieces in the parking lot below.

You're just misunderstood, Seingeist. The sinister secularists are out to get you at whatever cost.

Seingeist
11-19-2011, 10:13 PM
By all means show me the error of my ways. In what way did I misconstrue some very basic sociological terms? It's not like my academic career revolves around the subject.

If your grip on those concepts is as loose as you pretended, then your academic career is in peril.

And I have little interest in bothering to show you the "error" of ways that were intentionally off the mark.


Cherry-picked? It wasn't exactly like finding the needle in a haystack.

I look forward to you putting those blatantly misogynistic passages into a context that even approaches acceptability.


Well, I've some bad news for you then, as I mentioned above. I am not such a masochist as to desire to put any more energy or thought into a discussion with someone who is going to do his damnedest to divert every single point.

This is what it looks like when someone knocks over their King, ladies and gents.

?

You're just misunderstood, Seingeist. The sinister secularists are out to get you at whatever cost.

More often than not in discussions such as these, intentionally misunderstood or distorted, which is a key distinction.

I would not call you "sinister" so much as smug, dishonest, careless, closed-minded, and in bad faith. And you are indeed "out to" combat every point that I make at whatever cost to your own intellectual honesty and integrity, as you have amply demonstrated.

Clydey
11-19-2011, 10:22 PM
I would not call you "sinister" so much as dishonest, careless, and in bad faith. And you are indeed "out to" combat every point that I make at whatever cost to your own intellectual honesty and integrity, as you have amply demonstrated.

I would never be intellectually dishonest. It serves no real purpose other than to frustrate someone.

If you really do feel like your views have been misrepresented, you are more than welcome to clarify your position.

Seingeist
11-19-2011, 10:30 PM
I would never be intellectually dishonest. It serves no real purpose other than to frustrate someone.

And here's where the "bad faith" enters the picture.

If you really do feel like your views have been misrepresented, you are more than welcome to clarify your position.

How many times have I already explained why I am so rapidly losing the willingness to do just this? You are more than welcome to stop forcing me to do so by refusing to countenance my points honestly. :shrug:

Clydey
11-19-2011, 10:32 PM
And here's where the "bad faith" enters the picture.



How many times have I already explained why I am so rapidly losing the willingness to do just this? You are more than welcome to stop forcing me to do so by refusing to countenance my points honestly. :shrug:

I just don't believe you, though. It seems like you are just being evasive.

Run along if you must.

Seingeist
11-19-2011, 10:44 PM
I just don't believe you, though. It seems like you are just being evasive.

Run along if you must.

Upset that the misogynistic monkey will not dance for you, Clydey?

Need I remind you how this particular conversation started in the first place (with a careless and gratuitous insult)?

The only thing that I am "evading" is the colossal feeling of regret that I'll have after reading yet another response from you that demonstrates no trace of a sincere or fair attempt to grasp a single point that I have made in some laboriously long and careful post of mine (and in its stead only distortion, diversion, and mockery).

Har-Tru
11-19-2011, 10:53 PM
What laboriously long and careful post was that? As far as I've seen, all you do is criticise how others are and how they make their points instead of actually addressing their points.

Seingeist
11-19-2011, 11:27 PM
What laboriously long and careful post was that?

I was referring to the hypothetical post that would be centered around Jewish culture and the elaboration and contextualization of verses, not every post that I write. (See ACC threads for a multitude of "short" posts).

Unfailingly ironic that you missed the point.


As far as I've seen, all you do is criticise how others are and how they make their points instead of actually addressing their points.

As far as the more recent NT threads have gone (I'd be happy to direct you to older threads), this is close in a sense and quite mistaken in another sense.

It is "close" in the sense that I have indeed spent much of my time lately pointing out the rather invalid and sometimes pathetic ways that posters conduct themselves in discussion. (However, even this was not intended merely as some kind of "behavioral observation": it was more to expose the frame and progression of the discussion and show where things actually stood as a result).

It is mistaken, however, to say that I do not "address" their points. Taking the "Evolution" thread as an example, I necro'ed a dead thread to offer a commentary on it. Most of the responses made to me were at least loosely related to the "discussion-critical" points within that commentary (however misconstrued they might have been), and I addressed their points while simultaneously endeavoring to re-clarify my points that had been distorted. I had no reason to argue against any given piece of evolution because I was not denying or attacking evolution

And even in this rare instance in which I am actually refusing to have a "discussion" with Clydey about a particular issue, I have offered copious explanation as to why not.

Har-Tru
11-19-2011, 11:34 PM
Dress it anyway you want, you have not yet addressed the specific points in this thread and you didn't do it either in the Evolution thread you mention. There you popped in to side with your churchbuddy Aloimeh and from there on sticked to your usual refined version of the proverbial mumbo jumbo. Same thing here. You came in, made some points with weak or no arguments to back them up, and when others tried to talk it up, it was ad hominem all over again.

Seingeist
11-20-2011, 12:14 AM
Dress it anyway you want, you have not yet addressed the specific points in this thread and you didn't do it either in the Evolution thread you mention. There you popped in to side with your churchbuddy Aloimeh and from there on sticked to your usual refined version of the proverbial mumbo jumbo. Same thing here. You came in, made some points with weak or no arguments to back them up, and when others tried to talk it up, it was ad hominem all over again.

I think that the problem here is the ambiguity that surrounds the bolded phrase.

What exactly do you mean by "the specific points in this thread?"

My criticism of Clydey is that on a post-by-post basis (with sadly few exceptions), he consistently (and deliberately) misconstrues the various points and subpoints contained within my posts in order to attack them, whether these points address the "central themes" in the thread or whether they address something else (so long as he is motivated for one reason or another to disagree with them). He does not genuinely seek to understand what I am saying and respond accordingly; he typically only seeks out any possible method of disagreement or ridicule, nearly always setting up straw men in the process. He is not a sincere or good-faith interlocutor.

Sometimes these distorted points are rather large-scale and significant, and sometimes they are quite petty and small, which makes their distortion all-the-more head-scratching. A great example, actually, is just above where you take me to be saying that all of my posts are long and careful.

If you had been paying attention up to that point, or even if you had simply read the sentence more carefully and thought about it for a split-second, it should have been more than obvious to you that I was referring to the hypothetical post that would be required to respond sufficiently to Clydey's allegedly "misogynistic" verses.

In any case, in the sense in which I am accusing Clydey of deliberate misrepresentation, I certainly do not "avoid points." I always endeavor to understand what the other poster is trying to say and I am not at all hesitant to concede valid points or arguments.

If by "the specific points in the thread," you are referring to the "main" or "central" themes of a thread, then of course, NO, I do not always address those points and I do not see the need to. :shrug: E.g. As I said above, I do not reject evolution, so why would I want to make arguments against it?

By the way, the carelessness and inaccuracy of your little "thread narrative" demonstrates precisely the kind of attitude that is not fit for a remotely thoughtful discussion, which is frankly the only kind of discussion that merits much of the effort that I have foolishly put into the farces that play out here.

Clydey
11-20-2011, 12:34 AM
I think that the problem here is the ambiguity that surrounds the bolded phrase.

What exactly do you mean by "the specific points in this thread?"

My criticism of Clydey is that on a post-by-post basis (with sadly few exceptions), he consistently (and deliberately) misconstrues the various points and subpoints contained within my posts in order to attack them, whether these points address the "central themes" in the thread or whether they address something else (so long as he is motivated for one reason or another to disagree with them). He does not genuinely seek to understand what I am saying and respond accordingly; he typically only seeks out any possible method of disagreement or ridicule, nearly always setting up straw men in the process. He is not a sincere or good-faith interlocutor.

Sometimes these distorted points are rather large-scale and significant, and sometimes they are quite petty and small, which makes their distortion all-the-more head-scratching. A great example, actually, is just above where you take me to be saying that all of my posts are long and careful.

If you had been paying attention up to that point, or even if you had simply read the sentence more carefully and thought about it for a split-second, it should have been more than obvious to you that I was referring to the hypothetical post that would be required to respond sufficiently to Clydey's allegedly "misogynistic" verses.

In any case, in the sense in which I am accusing Clydey of deliberate misrepresentation, I certainly do not "avoid points." I always endeavor to understand what the other poster is trying to say and I am not at all hesitant to concede valid points or arguments.

If by "the specific points in the thread," you are referring to the "main" or "central" themes of a thread, then of course, NO, I do not always address those points and I do not see the need to. :shrug: E.g. As I said above, I do not reject evolution, so why would I want to make arguments against it?

By the way, the carelessness and inaccuracy of your little "thread narrative" demonstrates precisely the kind of attitude that is not fit for a remotely thoughtful discussion, which is frankly the only kind of discussion that merits much of the effort that I have foolishly put into the farces that play out here.

I am not deliberately misconstruing anything. You keep repeating this, yet you don't even attempt to clarify what it is that you think I have misunderstood. If I have misunderstood something, it is clear that I'm not the only one. Do you think Lopez, Har-Tru, and I are all intentionally misunderstanding you? Both of them seem to agree with my responses to you, so we must all be in on it.

Lopez
11-20-2011, 02:03 AM
Cry me a river, Lopez. I already explained to you why it was no longer practical to continue the discussion in the Evolution thread. Even in this very thread, as I pointed out, you misconstrued my points and position there. And take my word for it: there is nothing more "annoying" than offering post after laborious post only to watch their content go entirely misunderstood and/or skewed.

It would be more constructive for me to sculpt elaborate clay figurines and then chuck them off my balcony and watch them shatter to pieces in the parking lot below.

Oh PUH-LEASE :rolleyes: :lol:

This is VERY ironic coming from you who tends to simply cry about his point not being understood while rarely actually addressing anything the poster said. Then of course follows the classic disappearence in the thread.

You keep saying that you could say something about Clydey's arguments, yet you refuse to do so. Probably would have taken you less typing in this thread if you actually addressed them.

This seems to be your modus operandi in threads though. You come along with one or two long posts which people address, then you cry about not being understood and stop posting when you are sensing that the other guy is actually making a good argument. Not only that, you rarely even explain the alleged misunderstanding which got you all worked up, another reason to think that you just run away after you are uncomfortable with the arguments of the other poster.

For an English major, you seem terribly unaware of the fact that this forum is an international one. While my English is certainly better than your Finnish, I can never honestly say that I could rival your English skills. Have you ever thought that the reason you are allegedly misunderstood is the complicated way with which you express your points? You might want work on that.

Then again, I still believe it's just an excuse for you to run away from a losing argument thinking you've won. :shrug:

paseo
11-20-2011, 05:34 AM
Eh, :no:, it doesn't. :rolleyes:


:rolleyes:


:rolleyes:


:rolleyes:


:rolleyes:


:cuckoo:

Why the over the top smileys? If you think I'm wrong, just say so. Here's what I meant :


where did they fly into...? wall street... world trade centre... anyone with half a brain who wants to see deeper sees it was an attack on the global vending machine that is the US Federal Reserve... who controls the fed...? private bankers... where do you find these bankers...? wall street... and so, attack the very excesses built by these private bankers who print money at interest for the world... the pure hatred for a debt money system that binds the world in slavery....


“I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom.”


I personally don't believe that Osama did it like they said. I actually agree with what osama said there. And I would never have read it if it wasn't for your post, so for what it's worth, thanks. I'm just saying that IF fast_clay's theory was right, then what Osama said about slaving countries through economics, really is the reason why they crashed the planes into world trade center. Not to the white house or something.

Having said that, I don't agree with fast_clay's theory, of course. IMHO, there's no way those planes made it to the city without inside help. This is the U.S. we're talking about, not some developing country. Some fighter jet should've taken them down within minutes. that's why I'm somewhat going with the conspiracy theories. But, that doesn't mean I don't wanna hear what others think. It's nice to know different opinions.

it doesn't mean that both sides hold equal merit and value, theists don't apply this mode of thinking on the rest of their life matters, outside of religion they always "demand something real, something we can understand", atheists have a more consistent world view and deal with facts and what we know, not what we imagine or wish to be true

it's appalling how many double standards are involved simply evoking the word "faith"

Well, theists pray for everything, including thing's outside religion. logically speaking, pray is not 'something real'. So, it's kind of consistent :D And as far as I know, God tells us to also work hard not just pray. And part of working hard is to deal with facts and reality of this world.

It's tough to argue with the double standards, cause it does happen. The only thing I can say about it is 'human nature'. The Religion might be perfect, but humans aren't. If you can make something go your way, or if you're doing something you know is wrong but you don't want to be hold accountable for, If you can have that simply just by claiming it was for God, how many of us could really resist that? This doesn't excuse the person doing it of course, but is it really the religion's fault?

Har-Tru
11-20-2011, 08:44 AM
I think that the problem here is the ambiguity that surrounds the bolded phrase.

What exactly do you mean by "the specific points in this thread?"

My criticism of Clydey is that on a post-by-post basis (with sadly few exceptions), he consistently (and deliberately) misconstrues the various points and subpoints contained within my posts in order to attack them, whether these points address the "central themes" in the thread or whether they address something else (so long as he is motivated for one reason or another to disagree with them). He does not genuinely seek to understand what I am saying and respond accordingly; he typically only seeks out any possible method of disagreement or ridicule, nearly always setting up straw men in the process. He is not a sincere or good-faith interlocutor.

Sometimes these distorted points are rather large-scale and significant, and sometimes they are quite petty and small, which makes their distortion all-the-more head-scratching. A great example, actually, is just above where you take me to be saying that all of my posts are long and careful.

If you had been paying attention up to that point, or even if you had simply read the sentence more carefully and thought about it for a split-second, it should have been more than obvious to you that I was referring to the hypothetical post that would be required to respond sufficiently to Clydey's allegedly "misogynistic" verses.

In any case, in the sense in which I am accusing Clydey of deliberate misrepresentation, I certainly do not "avoid points." I always endeavor to understand what the other poster is trying to say and I am not at all hesitant to concede valid points or arguments.

If by "the specific points in the thread," you are referring to the "main" or "central" themes of a thread, then of course, NO, I do not always address those points and I do not see the need to. :shrug: E.g. As I said above, I do not reject evolution, so why would I want to make arguments against it?

By the way, the carelessness and inaccuracy of your little "thread narrative" demonstrates precisely the kind of attitude that is not fit for a remotely thoughtful discussion, which is frankly the only kind of discussion that merits much of the effort that I have foolishly put into the farces that play out here.

I might have misread your sentence, but you misread mine too just now. Where do I say that all your posts are long and careful?

I said what I had to say here, no need to go around in circles.

buddyholly
11-20-2011, 12:48 PM
I missed the critical post that gave rise to all this discussion, I guess.

But when Clydey claims that anyone denying religious persecution exists in the US is ignorant and leaves it at that, without an attempt to explain his assertion, then I have to assume he just posts whatever comes into his head, no responsibility needed.

abraxas21
11-20-2011, 03:54 PM
I am neither "racist" nor "atheist," and I have no desire to live under any version of Sharia law either.

Brand me however you like, shiaben et al, but I have come to appreciate various freedoms (e.g. religious freedom) that exist in the West but that do not exist in certain Islamic countries.

Of course, speaking for the U.S. anyway, Islam is in no way the biggest threat to religious freedom, but that's another topic. ;)

your equivalence of islam with sharia law shows your bias, extreme caricaturizations and deep intolerance for muslims.

can't say im surprised...

abraxas21
11-20-2011, 04:00 PM
Whatever the true sense means. It should be attacked in any sense.
We have a case in Ontario right now where an Afghan father, wife and son of 18 years old at the time of the crime, put wife #1 and three teenaged daughters in a car and shoved it into Lake Ontario. Why? Because the girls wanted to dress western and talk to boys.
That is the kind of Islamic thought that needs to be banished from civilisation.

:facepalm:

selecting unique examples is the regular discourse of right win propagandists and populists all around the world. it's conveninetly easy to forget the fact that there are crazies everywhere and just like there are muslim wackos who would do awful crimes in the name of their religion there are nationalist idiots who are willing to kill wetbacks to keep their country 'clean'. yet, the way the press deals with these cases is completely arbitrary and intolerant. in one case the religion entirely is to blame and in the other it was just the work of a lunatic. i suspect you can also see yourself identified in this analogy

abraxas21
11-20-2011, 04:03 PM
He was absolutely right with that statement. It's just he's one of the few who actually has the balls to say it.

no, he isn't. he's simply making the equivalence of 'islam' = 'sharia law' = awful.

that type of speech can only find adherents in (a) idiots and (b) right wingers with aspirations of power.

Clydey
11-20-2011, 04:17 PM
I missed the critical post that gave rise to all this discussion, I guess.

But when Clydey claims that anyone denying religious persecution exists in the US is ignorant and leaves it at that, without an attempt to explain his assertion, then I have to assume he just posts whatever comes into his head, no responsibility needed.

Interesting way of looking at things. I make a single assertion that I don't back up and suddenly I just post whatever comes into my head? I may not have provided evidence, but I did explain my assertion.

Shall I go through your posts and highlight every single assertion that isn't immediately followed by evidence?

All you had to do was ask, BH. These should get you started.

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/files/atheist%20as%20the%20other.pdf

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/custody.pdf

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1#.TskyXLLvTNc

tiyJzWy3CDQ

-WYdcvXKoKo

abraxas21
11-20-2011, 04:21 PM
Islam is a wicked, dangerous religion, and not only because of its concept of Holy War. Islam is, to stay on topic, the main reason for the lack of integration of Muslims in the western world. We are asking people to like us and meddle with us whose religion tells them to fight us.

There is no moderate Islam. There is moderate people who are sensible enough to ignore some of the precepts of their intolerant religion.

well, im glad you have no qualms about showing your islamophobic credentials.

most people arent as straightforward as you in that department. i think you'd get along with the likes of geert wilders... to some extent at least

Har-Tru
11-20-2011, 05:11 PM
well, im glad you have no qualms about showing your islamophobic credentials.

most people arent as straightforward as you in that department. i think you'd get along with the likes of geert wilders... to some extent at least

I'll let Sam Harris explain:

LfKLV6rmLxE

star
11-20-2011, 07:09 PM
I personally don't believe that Osama did it like they said. I actually agree with what osama said there. And I would never have read it if it wasn't for your post, so for what it's worth, thanks. I'm just saying that IF fast_clay's theory was right, then what Osama said about slaving countries through economics, really is the reason why they crashed the planes into world trade center. Not to the white house or something.

Having said that, I don't agree with fast_clay's theory, of course. IMHO, there's no way those planes made it to the city without inside help. This is the U.S. we're talking about, not some developing country. Some fighter jet should've taken them down within minutes. that's why I'm somewhat going with the conspiracy theories. But, that doesn't mean I don't wanna hear what others think. It's nice to know different opinions.



http://www.skeptic.com/searchresults.html?cx=018011741860882051434%3Aalih tmnfi_m&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=world+trade+center+conspiracy&sa=search+skeptic.com&siteurl=www.skeptic.com%2F

Here’s a whole series of articles for you.

It’s too tiresome to discuss conspiracy theories here.

Gagsquet
11-20-2011, 07:19 PM
How could someone believe in conspiracy theories about 9/11 (the inside help) ?! It's beyond ridiculous.

habibko
11-20-2011, 07:25 PM
Well, theists pray for everything, including thing's outside religion. logically speaking, pray is not 'something real'. So, it's kind of consistent :D And as far as I know, God tells us to also work hard not just pray. And part of working hard is to deal with facts and reality of this world.

praying IS part of religion, and if theists only work hard because God tell them to, it isn't a point in their favor, because if they lost their faith they should logically be fired from their jobs

It's tough to argue with the double standards, cause it does happen. The only thing I can say about it is 'human nature'. The Religion might be perfect, but humans aren't.

there are a few good religions out there, mostly in India and China, it doesn't make them any more true though, and humans can do just fine with secular and humanist values

If you can make something go your way, or if you're doing something you know is wrong but you don't want to be hold accountable for, If you can have that simply just by claiming it was for God, how many of us could really resist that?

atheists?

what you described is part of what makes religion such a dangerous force, exactly the thing that explains suicide bombing, honor killing and the list goes on

This doesn't excuse the person doing it of course, but is it really the religion's fault?

yes

abraxas21
11-20-2011, 07:29 PM
I remember this from him:

On October 29, 2010, during a Real Time segment, Maher commented on a news story saying that the name Mohammed had become the most popular baby name in the United Kingdom. He asked, "Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that? Because I am. And it’s not because of the race, it’s because of the religion. I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam in 300 years? Sharia law is being institutionalized in England? Well, then I am right, I should be alarmed."

He is a disgrace to true liberals. He's an ethnocentric racist Zionist dirt bag that is no better than the Neo-Nazi conservatives he criticizes.

im going to watch the nadull/fish match and i noticed the umpire is the swedish mohamed lahyani. i wonder what would maher think of him? would he like to show his intolerance and disgust at his first name being a reflection of the hordes of muslim immigrants invading europe with their religion or would he accept him as an equal?

oh, but i forgot, hes a racist prick

abraxas21
11-20-2011, 07:32 PM
I'll let Sam Harris explain:

LfKLV6rmLxE
he's got a good theory but i have a better one:

maybe the fact that the moors occupied your peninsula for like 6 centuries has developed in you some sort of hatred and intolerance against muslims in general...?

habibko
11-20-2011, 07:35 PM
im going to watch the nadull/fish match and i noticed the umpire is the swedish mohamed lahyani. i wonder what would maher think of him? would he like to show his intolerance and disgust at his first name being a reflection of the hordes of muslim immigrants invading europe with their religion or would he accept him as an equal?

oh, but i forgot, hes a racist prick

that's a nice way of looking at it, if Maher and right-winged racists had it their way, there would be no Mohammed Lahyani!

buddyholly
11-20-2011, 08:20 PM
:facepalm:

selecting unique examples is the regular discourse of right win propagandists and populists all around the world. it's conveninetly easy to forget the fact that there are crazies everywhere and just like there are muslim wackos who would do awful crimes in the name of their religion there are nationalist idiots who are willing to kill wetbacks to keep their country 'clean'. yet, the way the press deals with these cases is completely arbitrary and intolerant. in one case the religion entirely is to blame and in the other it was just the work of a lunatic. i suspect you can also see yourself identified in this analogy

What it has to do with politics is beyond me. Religion and politics are not the same. The case I mentioned is not unique, but fortunately in Toronto it is rare.
The big mistake you make here is that the father and son are not crazies.He is a very successful businessman. And of course you also failed to realise the importance of the fact that the murder was carried out by father, wife #2 and son. Three crazies? Or three people doing what they would do in their original country and probably get away with it?
I just saw another instance today of an Afghan woman jailed for refusing to marry her rapist. But that is another story. On this one your rhetoric has failed.

"The way the press deals with these cases is completely arbitrary and intolerant.'' What a stupid, meaningless remark. You just made it up without even thinking how silly it is. How would you expect the press to treat a quadruple family murder by the other three members of the family? The press could either report the story or ignore it. You seem to be enraged that the press reported it. So, are you suggesting the press should ignore it because it is insulting to Muslims or because to Muslims it is not a big deal and so nobody else should be interested? I think you, as usual, interpret ''free press' to mean a press that tells you what you want to hear. It does not work that way in Canada.

I see you like that little thing that looks like the World Cup. When you use it, you seem to be saying, "I do not want to read this post. It should not have been posted.''

Har-Tru
11-20-2011, 08:21 PM
he's got a good theory but i have a better one:

maybe the fact that the moors occupied your peninsula for like 6 centuries has developed in you some sort of hatred and intolerance against muslims in general...?

You're such a contemptible tool. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time with such monument to obnoxiousness.

You already got a lengthy ban because of an outrageous remark about Spanish history in reply to a post of mine. I guess you didn't have enough.

buddyholly
11-20-2011, 08:31 PM
Interesting way of looking at things. I make a single assertion that I don't back up and suddenly I just post whatever comes into my head? I may not have provided evidence, but I did explain my assertion.

Shall I go through your posts and highlight every single assertion that isn't immediately followed by evidence?

All you had to do was ask, BH. These should get you started.



A lot of stuff there, but my computer is acting up on making links. Goinfg out to buy a Mac tomorrow. In the meantime could you just point me to the instances of ''persecution?''

abraxas21
11-20-2011, 08:36 PM
You're such a contemptible tool. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time with such monument to obnoxiousness.

You already got a lengthy ban because of an outrageous remark about Spanish history in reply to a post of mine. I guess you didn't have enough.

that was last year and yes i admit it was over the top. even though there are no explicit rules against that type of comments i accepted the ban. in fact, of all received bans, i'd say it's the only true ban i truly deserved.

however, here i'm speaking facts and i have nothing to regret about what i've said

buddyholly
11-20-2011, 08:37 PM
that's a nice way of looking at it, if Maher and right-winged racists had it their way, there would be no Mohammed Lahyani!

That is actually total bullshit. You are confusing religion with an individual.

OK, it's bullshit until Lahyani stops a match to go pray.

abraxas21
11-20-2011, 08:50 PM
since the bill maher thread got locked, it's better to keep discussing in this thread about the matter.

plus, i had a post ready to post only to find that the thread had been closed :rolleyes:

abraxas21
11-20-2011, 08:50 PM
anyhow, in response to BH

What it has to do with politics is beyond me. Religion and politics are not the same. The case I mentioned is not unique, but fortunately in Toronto it is rare.
The big mistake you make here is that the father and son are not crazies.He is a very successful businessman. And of course you also failed to realise the importance of the fact that the murder was carried out by father, wife #2 and son. Three crazies? Or three people doing what they would do in their original country and probably get away with it?
I just saw another instance today of an Afghan woman jailed for refusing to marry her rapist. But that is another story. On this one your rhetoric has failed.

the very fact that this type of stories make the press shows the uniqueness of their cases and confirm the point i make. as much as you like to cherrypick horrendous cases that right wing anti-immigration tabloids like to feed on, the truth is that most muslims like to live in peace and don't want the entire world to live under sharia law. i know your paranoid mind keeps maintaining you in constant fear but trust me, they're not after you.

"The way the press deals with these cases is completely arbitrary and intolerant.'' What a stupid, meaningless remark. You just made it up without even thinking how silly it is. How would you expect the press to treat a quadruple family murder by the other three members of the family? The press could either report the story or ignore it. You seem to be enraged that the press reported it. So, are you suggesting the press should ignore it because it is insulting to Muslims or because to Muslims it is not a big deal and so nobody else should be interested? I think you, as usual, interpret ''free press' to mean a press that tells you what you want to hear. It does not work that way in Canada.

I see you like that little thing that looks like the World Cup. When you use it, you seem to be saying, "I do not want to read this post. It should not have been posted.''

i dont want the press to censor these stories. what i do have a problem with is how the press deals with them. like i already said, when a right wing goes on a shooting spree, he's just a lunatic but when a muslim does something similarly awful, it's because of his religion. the double standards are notorious.

star
11-20-2011, 09:05 PM
For those living in the U.S.: TLC has a new program called All American Muslim. The first program was last week. The second airs tonight (sunday).

shiaben
11-20-2011, 10:41 PM
Abraxas, ignorant people, will remain ignorant, they're simply too stubborn to change their black and white thinking.

Har-Tu is nothing but a bigot. He used that example of Sam Harris, a moron who depicts Bin Laden as some kind of universal leader and model for all Muslims of the world. Really? Some political figure whose the product of the CIA? The same CIA that installed the Taliban, Al-Qaida, and soiled its hands in creating other dangerous movements to destroy Muslim lives abroad.

I also think Har-Tu is a bit butt hurt about the influence of both the foreign Moors and Sephardic Jews in revolutionizing Spanish culture and civilization.

As for BuddyHolly, this guy is another bigot. That example of honor killing in Canada, does not represent Muslims abroad at all. If this were true, you would see every single observant Muslim participating in honor killings if this was "part of the religion". As far as I know, honor killings, happen among uneducated and unhealthy individuals. It has nothing to do with Islam.

Smoke944
11-21-2011, 01:43 AM
For those living in the U.S.: TLC has a new program called All American Muslim. The first program was last week. The second airs tonight (sunday).

Set in my hometown! :lol: