islam,, a danger or not

[neon tetra]

[can't sit still]

Jstep, the term is mine. Maybe I should have said manufactured rather than synthetic.

The natural, physical world is the birthplace and birthright of all animals. Only Man ventures into the conceptual world. You can't explain law or the far future to a chimp of dolphin. You certainly can't explain god.
Humans commonly venture into the conceptual world but, it is an acquired ability. It appears that there is a window for developing this ability;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period_hypothesis
That would imply that religion must be "impressed" onto a child before a certain age;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

If moving around in the conceptual world is indeed a learned ability, a deadly-dull enviornment would tend to stunt this ability. The madrassas are known for rote learning and memorization. This doesn't do much for conceptual learning. I believe that the more a person indulges in conceptual learning, the better one becomes at critical thinking.

Belief in a manufactured deity with human attributes is problematic for a person with fully developed critical thinking. Look at the founding dates of the universities in Saudi Arabia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_un ... udi_Arabia
It doesn't appear that the Wahhabbists are big on higher education.

Islam, unlike christianity demands to be a complete guide for living. That makes it all the more incompatible with critical thinking.
The whole concept of 24 virgins and a palace in heaven doesn't fare well with critical thinking either.

This thread could have been called; "Is Islam a danger for non-islamists?"
It's a well-proven fact that islam is a danger for fellow islamists.
Various sects of christianity have varying lineups for who is the chief god and who is a prophet,,, etc. LDS is a good example.
Islam is very similar. Islam takes these differences very seriously. They have killed many millions of their co-believers over these details. Just the protracted scuffle between Saddam Hussein and Iran killed a million true believers. To Saudi, America is the great satan. According to wikileaks, Saudi wanted America to attack iran.

The main split has been going on since about 640 AD.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/shia.htm
The Wahhabbi split dates from the 18th century;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

The big problem isn't the split in beliefs. The MAJOR problem is the attitude of exclusivity. Imagine if the Methodists were exhorted to kill the Presbyterians.
The depression of critical thinking combined with the exclusivity has always caused big problems.

[neon tetra]

poor man

skillful beyond all other animals

by being able to think in time

and knowing the future

he dies before he is dead

he shrinks from the shark's teeth before they bite him

he dreads the alien germ long long before its banquet begins



~ Alan Watts

[dr.placebo]

The big problem isn't the split in beliefs. The MAJOR problem is the attitude of exclusivity. Imagine if the Methodists were exhorted to kill the Presbyterians.
The depression of critical thinking combined with the exclusivity has always caused big problems.

Just imagine if Protestants and Catholics set out to kill each other.

Imagine. Or remember.

Religious warfare among sects is nothing new, and few sects have a clean history. Not that it is necessary to have a religious difference to start a war, of course.

My reading of history is unlikely to be popular here. I claim that no major religion based on The Book shows a dedication to pacifism or acceptance. Religious tolerance is a relatively modern idea, and is far from universally accepted. Religions tend to be self-contradicting, so by cherry picking passages from holy books one can paint any of the three religions based on The Book as being told to practice war or peace.

[can't sit still]

Can't argue with that BUT, what I really want to know; how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[JStep]

CSS: Well, I'd have to say that there is no real difference between natural and synthetic gods, as you describe them. The so-called natural gods are only natural in the way they are supposed to be, or seem like, or mimic natural world beings or phenomenon. They are still un-natural in that they are imagined, with no base in reality beyond a story or description. The christian god, as I imagine it falls into your category of synthetic, is also modeled after an animal; the human being.

[FIGJAM]

Can't argue with that BUT, what I really want to know; how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

How large is this pin?

How large are angel feet?

Get me some facts and I'll guess at an answer.

[Elderberry]

The big problem isn't the split in beliefs. The MAJOR problem is the attitude of exclusivity. Imagine if the Methodists were exhorted to kill the Presbyterians.
The depression of critical thinking combined with the exclusivity has always caused big problems.

Just imagine if Protestants and Catholics set out to kill each other.

Imagine. Or remember.

Religious warfare among sects is nothing new, and few sects have a clean history. Not that it is necessary to have a religious difference to start a war, of course.

My reading of history is unlikely to be popular here. I claim that no major religion based on The Book shows a dedication to pacifism or acceptance. Religious tolerance is a relatively modern idea, and is far from universally accepted. Religions tend to be self-contradicting, so by cherry picking passages from holy books one can paint any of the three religions based on The Book as being told to practice war or peace.

I am always in awe of your wisdom.

JK

[Eric]

My reading of history is unlikely to be popular here. I claim that no major religion based on The Book shows a dedication to pacifism or acceptance. Religious tolerance is a relatively modern idea, and is far from universally accepted. Religions tend to be self-contradicting, so by cherry picking passages from holy books one can paint any of the three religions based on The Book as being told to practice war or peace.

Totally agree.

Plus you have to add the fact that all books have "commentaries" that are supposed to explain the Books, but don't all agree with each other.

My favorite current usage is the highlighting of an area that offends someone (lets say being gay) while ignoring the laws in the same book they don't want to follow (like eating shellfish or stoning your children).

Islam is currently going through a period similar to the Christian "Reformation"; just like there was the hard line Catholic "anti-Reformation" there is a hard line Islamic anti-reformation. It will take time to see how this plays out. I'll be dead by the time it does.

[Simon of the Playa]

hopefully this thread will be dead too.

nice post neon tetra, your bigot is showing.

[neon tetra]

Islam is a violent, controlling, misogynistic cult. It it not a 'religion of peace'.

'Politically correct' or not, I am just being honest.

I'll spare you all of the violent quotes from the Koran (it would take me all day to copy & paste them all), but I suggest you get a copy for yourself & read a bit of it. You can get one shipped to you for free on the internet.

[neon tetra]

From God's lips to your ears: http://www.freekoran.com/

The Koran is the final, infallible, direct and complete record of the exact words of God, brought down by angel Gabriel and firmly implanted in the heart of His final Prophet and Messenger Muhammad

[Simon of the Playa]

Islam is a violent, controlling, misogynistic cult. It it not a 'religion of peace'.

'Politically correct' or not, I am just being honest.

I'll spare you all of the violent quotes from the Koran (it would take me all day to copy & paste them all), but I suggest you get a copy for yourself & read a bit of it. You can get one shipped to you for free on the internet.

perhaps you could ship me YOUR version of the RULES at Burning Man as Well

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?t=38270

thanks, your a doll.

[daratheresa]

Islam is a violent, controlling, misogynistic cult. It it not a 'religion of peace'.

'Politically correct' or not, I am just being honest.

I'll spare you all of the violent quotes from the Koran (it would take me all day to copy & paste them all), but I suggest you get a copy for yourself & read a bit of it. You can get one shipped to you for free on the internet.

oooohkay. so let me get this straight. you are stating that islam is a violent religion, with intentions to expand and take over everywhere. this is what you're stating, no?

let's say that i agree with you. i don't, really, but for the sake of making my next point, of seeing things from your point of view, that i'll agree with you.

so we have established that

a) islam is violent, and a danger to us.

however. i pretty distinctly recall you saying in another thread that all of our american soldiers are "murderers" and that we really have no business having a military, that they're all morally reprehensible pieces of dogshit because they might, in the course of their work, have to kill people. you pretty clearly stated that there is no reason for a person to ever kill another person.

so you establish that

b) we don't need an army because violence is below us.

let me ask you this? if, in your scenario, islam is violent, who is going to stop the evil muslims from taking over and violently indoctrinating everyone, if we have no armed forces, no defense? do you think they will just see the light and stop the crusade and bow down before our moral superiority?

personally, i don't agree with any of this. i'm just taking two separate statements that you yourself made and pointing out your own contradictions. organize your arguments before you start spouting off ideals, or you risk making yourself look like a fool.

[Simon of the Playa]

نيون تيترا هو النمام القرÙ

[daratheresa]

[quote="Simon of the Playa"]نيون تيترا هو النمام القرÙ

[The CO]

Islam is a violent, controlling, misogynistic cult. It it not a 'religion of peace'.

Excluded middle, -1

[neon tetra]

i pretty distinctly recall you saying . . . that we really have no business having a military, that they're all morally reprehensible pieces of dogshit

Never said that.

you pretty clearly stated that there is no reason for a person to ever kill another person.

Never said that either, doll.

we don't need an army because violence is below us.

Never said or insinuated that.





Straw man. -1

[ygmir]

I like cheese.

[Simon of the Playa]

i pretty distinctly recall you saying . . . that we really have no business having a military, that they're all morally reprehensible pieces of dogshit

Never said that.

you pretty clearly stated that there is no reason for a person to ever kill another person.

Never said that either, doll.

we don't need an army because violence is below us.

Never said or insinuated that.





Straw man. -1

LIAR!


-1313

[neon tetra]

Every nation needs a military. It doesn't mean that you have to support anything & everything that the military does.
You don't seem to get that.

Please show me where I've ever said otherwise. And stop misquoting me.
I don't mind it from Simple Simon, but I expect more from you, Dara.

[daratheresa]

Every nation needs a military. It doesn't mean that you have to support anything & everything that the military does.
You don't seem to get that.

Please show me where I've ever said otherwise. And stop misquoting me.
I don't mind it from Simple Simon, but I expect more from you, Dara.

hey, if you can cherry-pick your own quotes i can too. i didn't quote you at all, word for word, aside from the word "murderer", which you did use.

[neon tetra]

hey, if you can cherry-pick your own quotes i can too.

It's not 'cherry picking' when you claim I said things that I haven't. It's called lying.

I never said we don't need a military, I never said there wasn't ever a need for violence, I never called people pieces of dogshit.

i'm just taking two separate statements that you yourself made

Only... you aren't, at all. You're trying for a straw man argument, but failing miserably.

Leave that to the nincompoops. You're smarter than that.
Or so I thought.

[Simon of the Playa]

لا تضيعوا وقتكم، بل هو الهاء عن قصد.

[The CO]

I do not support people who use my tax $$ to go overseas and murder hundreds of thousands of human beings in 'wars' based solely on lies & bullshit. Is that clearer?

...

So it's OK to murder hundreds of thousands of people... and long as you're gettin' paid?

...

Well, they ARE baby killers. In fact the VAST majority of deaths are civilians.

...

Right, because the United States is only for people who support the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis & Afghans.

Not really a straw man issue that I can see... eh, perspective is relative.

I don't mind it from Simple Simon, but I expect more from you

Ad hominem, -1

[Simon of the Playa]

الاصطياد مجرد لكم... وقتك الثمين، ليست له.

[daratheresa]

لا تضيعوا وقتكم، بل هو الهاء عن قصد.

أعرÙ

[neon tetra]

>>>I do not support people who use my tax $$ to go overseas and murder hundreds of thousands of human beings in 'wars' based solely on lies & bullshit. Is that clearer?

That is my position.
Do you disagree with it?
...

>>>So it's OK to murder hundreds of thousands of people... and long as you're gettin' paid?

I hear this ALL THE TIME: "So-and-so doesn't support these wars either, but (s)he needed the money for college..."
Seems like a bullshit reason to kill people, IMO.
Do you disagree?
...

>>>Well, they ARE baby killers. In fact the VAST majority of deaths are civilians.

This is a fact, and in our newest 'front' of the 'War On Terror' (Pakistan) our drones kill over 10 civilians for each suspected 'militant'.
That doesn't stop us, however.
...

>>>Right, because the United States is only for people who support the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis & Afghans.

It's called sarcasm. Look it up.

[neon tetra]

Dara, I'm still waiting for an apology.

[The CO]

I think you will be waiting a long time.