The Case Against Islam...

[amicus]

I hold that the religion of Islam is incompatible in a society where individual freedom is protected.

I will attempt to refute the claim that, 'moderate' Islam is not responsible for acts of terror committed by extremists within the religion.

Approximately ten percent of the German people were members of the Nazi Party; the same figure applies to Soviet Bloc people, only a small percentage were members of the Communist Party.

Yet, the tens of millions of human lives lost to the atrocities of Nazism and Communism cannot be discounted.

Perhaps an equal percentage of Muslims are members of the terrorist organizations spawned by the religion. This equates the possible simularities between the political organizations of Germany and Russia, and the world wide influence of Islamic rule.

1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
2. Islam: 1.5 billion
3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
4. Hinduism: 900 million
5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6. Buddhism: 376 million
7. primal-indigenous: 300 million
8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
9. Sikhism: 23 million
10. Juche: 19 million
11. Spiritism: 15 million
12. Judaism: 14 million
13. Baha'i: 7 million
14. Jainism: 4.2 million
15. Shinto: 4 million
16. Cao Dai: 4 million
17. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
18. Tenrikyo: 2 million
19. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
20. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
21. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
22. Scientology: 500 thousand

~~~

I find it strange to note that the third largest 'group' is not a religion at all, rather, atheism is the absence of religion.

Concerning expressed opinions on this forum concerning the proposed Mosque site near the former Twin Towers, it is somewhat surprising to witness those who insist on women's rights, supporting a religion that attributes no rights to women. Secondly, as most claim to belong in the 3rd grouping, secular, non religious...I find it interesting that they too support Islam as a viable alternative to thought.

Anyone remotely acquainted with the history of the world knows that conflict between competing religious groups has produced the most violence in all of history. The re-emergence of Islam can lead only to further conflict between religous groups, the civilized West and the Feudal Middle East.

I will postulate, as the Mosque issue has broken along Party lines, that the Wrong are merely supporting another anti American issue in their continuing quest to destroy the only free nation on earth.

"If you only had a brain..." You would realize that the innate violence of Islam is a far greater enemy to women's rights and rational thought than any political party could ever offer.

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

I agree, as it happens, I think all organised religions are bad for people. BUT-- so the fuck what? Unless you can raze every church, temple and chapel at the same time, one mosque doesn't mean a hill of beans.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UXgiFMweVLU/SsxoHkquVwI/AAAAAAAAABs/AEi8KRuqPNI/S1600-R/gay.jpg

 

[JackLuis]

"Hang all the priests with the entrails of lawyers and get it over with" he said as he nailed his thesis on the door.

 

[Stella_Omega]

"Hang all the priests with the entrails of lawyers and get it over with" he said as he nailed his thesis on the door.

Did you know that Goethe sent his character Faust to Wittenberg University?

And that Shakespeare sent Hamlet there as well?

 

[JackLuis]

Did you know that Goethe sent his character Faust to Wittenberg University?

And that Shakespeare sent Hamlet there as well?

No, but did you know on Disc World, the Gods really don't control anything? They just pose in the temples and the priests collect the offerings.

 

[Stella_Omega]

No, but did you know on Disc World, the Gods really don't control anything? They just pose in the temples and the priests collect the offerings.

They are "dunmanifestin"

Pratchett is absolutely brilliant. BRILLIANT! The title "Small gods" made me laugh out loud and I hadn't even started reading yet.

 

[JackLuis]

They are "dunmanifestin"

Pratchett is absolutely brilliant. BRILLIANT! The title "Small gods" made me laugh out loud and I hadn't even started reading yet.

Loved it, I have almost a whole set of his Disc World. Love his Wizards.

 

[al_Ussa]

I hold that the religion of Islam is incompatible in a society where individual freedom is protected.

Based on what? You don't actually give any proof one way or another. And which society? Which Islam? Shi'a? Sunni? Wahhabi? We aren't all the same.

I will attempt to refute the claim that, 'moderate' Islam is not responsible for acts of terror committed by extremists within the religion.

Your numbers suggest otherwise. I don't know every other Muslim in the world. I have never met Osama bin Ladin. I've never given him money. And I don't want to. So where does that get you? Do you know every other Christian in the world?

Perhaps an equal percentage of Muslims are members of the terrorist organizations spawned by the religion. This equates the possible simularities between the political organizations of Germany and Russia, and the world wide influence of Islamic rule.

World wide influence? You do realize that Muslims have fought against other Muslims. Shi'a-Sunni violence in Iraq, oppression of Kurds, Darfur, Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara, the Iran-Iraq war, the civil war between Pakistan and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), etc. Many of those terrorist groups are opposed to other Muslim groups and target us.

I find it strange to note that the third largest 'group' is not a religion at all, rather, atheism is the absence of religion.

Doesn't change the fact that 'atheism' is a religion, as much as anything else. It just isn't organized. Its still a coherent set of beliefs.

it is somewhat surprising to witness those who insist on women's rights, supporting a religion that attributes no rights to women.

Says who?

Secondly, as most claim to belong in the 3rd grouping, secular, non religious...I find it interesting that they too support Islam as a viable alternative to thought.

Atheists (and similar groups) run a wide spectrum. Some are more than willing to support freedom for Muslims AND Christians and anyone else. Others are some of the worst critics of ALL religions. Many of your anti-Muslim European friends like Geert Wilders are in fact Atheists.

Anyone remotely acquainted with the history of the world knows that conflict between competing religious groups has produced the most violence in all of history.

Aren't all conflicts basically boiled down to competing ideologies? Communist vs. Capitalist. Axis vs. Allies. Union vs. Confederacy. Protestant vs. Catholic. etc.

The re-emergence of Islam

From what? There was never a point in history where we STOPPED being Muslim in the first place. Most of North Africa, the Middle East, and a good chunk of Islam has been Muslim... for CENTURIES. How can we "re-emerge" if we never stopped?

can lead only to further conflict between religous groups, the civilized West and the Feudal Middle East.

Most Muslims don't live in the Middle East. Far more of us in Asia, but also in the fucking West too...

I will postulate, as the Mosque issue has broken along Party lines, that the Wrong are merely supporting another anti American issue in their continuing quest to destroy the only free nation on earth.

More like the Republicans are caving into the religious right. The Masjid issue didn't even exist a couple of months ago. Nobody cared. Literally. It only became an issue recently.

And it seems you are more in favor of banning religious freedom. Strikes me you are the anti-American one.

 

[amicus]

Well...an interesting response...I enjoy feisty rebuttals of my thesis; I even smiled at one part of your exposition and it did not hurt my face.

Originally Posted by amicus
I hold that the religion of Islam is incompatible in a society where individual freedom is protected.

Based on what? You don't actually give any proof one way or another. And which society? Which Islam? Shi'a? Sunni? Wahhabi? We aren't all the same.

Based on the stoning of adulterous women to begin with and the Qur'an is fundamental to all sects. Quite the contrary, we, are all the same in terms of human rights and human dignity.

Quote:
I will attempt to refute the claim that, 'moderate' Islam is not responsible for acts of terror committed by extremists within the religion.

Your numbers suggest otherwise. I don't know every other Muslim in the world. I have never met Osama bin Ladin. I've never given him money. And I don't want to. So where does that get you? Do you know every other Christian in the world?

It was a tad abstract I agree, but the association of an approximate ten percent actual extremist element within my proffered movements, Nazi, Communist, Islam, was intended to imply that the larger body of any movement is motivated by the extremist elements within. Thus, bin Ladin equates to Adoph or Uncle Joe and will produce similar results.

Quote:
Perhaps an equal percentage of Muslims are members of the terrorist organizations spawned by the religion. This equates the possible similarities between the political organizations of Germany and Russia, and the world wide influence of Islamic rule.

World wide influence? You do realize that Muslims have fought against other Muslims. Shi'a-Sunni violence in Iraq, oppression of Kurds, Darfur, Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara, the Iran-Iraq war, the civil war between Pakistan and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), etc. Many of those terrorist groups are opposed to other Muslim groups and target us.

Your point being? Perhaps that all formal religions, being founded on subjective fantasies, are interpreted differently in different times and go to war with each other over those differences? Duh. So did and does Christianity. Perhaps I should clarify my basic perception of religion as a farce and a scam, in all instances to cultivate the low intellect masses into supporting the elite, higher intellect purveyors of the faith. There is no God, no Allah, no Nirvana, no nothing supernatural anywhere at any time and all religion is intended to control the masses an enrich the leaders.

Quote:
I find it strange to note that the third largest 'group' is not a religion at all, rather, atheism is the absence of religion.

Doesn't change the fact that 'atheism' is a religion, as much as anything else. It just isn't organized. Its still a coherent set of beliefs.

Atheism is far from a coherent set of beliefs; it is instead an objective, scientific appraisal of reality that rejects subjective, wishfull fantasies and insists on clarity of thought and mind. Atheism is not and never has been identified as a religion except by those religious fanatics who reject the ability of the mind of man to perceive and comprehend reality.

Quote:
it is somewhat surprising to witness those who insist on women's rights, supporting a religion that attributes no rights to women.

Says who?

Sez me, if it matters. Am I to take it that you deny the subjugation of women under the qur'an? I can take the time to go chapter and verse to make the point but I would rather not waste my time as I know you are aware that throughout the religious history of Islam, women have had no rights, ever.

Quote:
Secondly, as most claim to belong in the 3rd grouping, secular, non religious...I find it interesting that they too support Islam as a viable alternative to thought.

Atheists (and similar groups) run a wide spectrum. Some are more than willing to support freedom for Muslims AND Christians and anyone else. Others are some of the worst critics of ALL religions. Many of your anti-Muslim European friends like Geert Wilders are in fact Atheists.

I see no great revelation here. The above was not addressed specifically to you, rather to the 'usual' suspects on the forum who claim the status of the amoral, who bleat that there are no absolutes, no moral values and that everything is subjective and relative. I don't question that Islam has moral absolutes, I just detest them.

Quote:
Anyone remotely acquainted with the history of the world knows that conflict between competing religious groups has produced the most violence in all of history.

Aren't all conflicts basically boiled down to competing ideologies? Communist vs. Capitalist. Axis vs. Allies. Union vs. Confederacy. Protestant vs. Catholic. etc.

Having an 'ideaology' (sic) means having an idea, a thought process, thinking, flawed or not, whereas 'faith' requires no thought, just acceptance and belief and the really comedic bending over, ass up, five times a day on your knees before an imaginary supernal being. tee hee.

Quote:
The re-emergence of Islam

From what? There was never a point in history where we STOPPED being Muslim in the first place. Most of North Africa, the Middle East, and a good chunk of Islam has been Muslim... for CENTURIES. How can we "re-emerge" if we never stopped?

Sometimes I offer a history lesson along with my thesis, and sometimes not. Persia, North Africa, following the Industrial Revolution, lay fallow until the discovery of oil. Islam was cloistered and living off its' curved sword and herds of horses and camels until the petro dollars gave the Sheiks the means to buy white women for their harems, guns and tanks for their cavalrymen.

Quote:
can lead only to further conflict between religous groups, the civilized West and the Feudal Middle East.

Most Muslims don't live in the Middle East. Far more of us in Asia, but also in the fucking West too...

Argh, I did limit 'feudal' to the middle east, my bad. Apply the term to Islam, Muslims, whereever they have migrated to and whatever society they have infiltrated and corrupted.

Quote:
I will postulate, as the Mosque issue has broken along Party lines, that the Wrong are merely supporting another anti American issue in their continuing quest to destroy the only free nation on earth.

More like the Republicans are caving into the religious right. The Masjid issue didn't even exist a couple of months ago. Nobody cared. Literally. It only became an issue recently.

And it seems you are more in favor of banning religious freedom. Strikes me you are the anti-American one.

Not actually, about 70 percent of American's Polled, are opposed to constructing that building on that site.

I am fully in support of religious freedom, as long as it remains separated from the functions of government.

Therein, lies the rub, Islam sees government as the enforcement body for the Koran, all, or most middle east nations are theocracies in which religion rules. And that is the worst possible outcome for a conflict between ideology and faith.

Nice chatting with you, please come back soon.

Amicus

 

[al_Ussa]

Based on the stoning of adulterous women to begin with and the Qur'an is fundamental to all sects.

And stoning adulterous women isn't even part of the Holy Qur'an. Most of that comes from subsequent developments which discuss social and political issues in depth. Not to mention that there are almost as many interpretations of the Qur'an in the first place.

Quite the contrary, we, are all the same in terms of human rights and human dignity.

Your assumptions though are based on a distinctly western Euro-American view of culture and religion in which everyone is expected to convert to YOUR ideology. Some of us - many of us - don't want to be assimilated. We are happy to maintain our culture and traditions. Not everyone will become atheist. Not everyone will become western. Not everyone will wear blue jeans and eat McDonalds.

It was a tad abstract I agree, but the association of an approximate ten percent actual extremist element within my proffered movements, Nazi, Communist, Islam, was intended to imply that the larger body of any movement is motivated by the extremist elements within.

Except - as I said before - Islam is not an organized movement at all.

Thus, bin Ladin equates to Adoph or Uncle Joe and will produce similar results.

You do realize that bin Ladin holds no real religious authority in Islam at all. In fact as far as he is concerned we are non-Muslims. On the other hand our leaders and scholars have said the same of his Wahhabi teachings. Far from an organized group.

Your point being? Perhaps that all formal religions, being founded on subjective fantasies, are interpreted differently in different times and go to war with each other over those differences? Duh. So did and does Christianity.

Did anyone argue differently? This would seem to disprove your argument. If my Islam - the Islam of my ancestors - is not the same as the Wahhabis then what ground do you have to stand on?

Perhaps I should clarify my basic perception of religion as a farce and a scam, in all instances to cultivate the low intellect masses into supporting the elite, higher intellect purveyors of the faith.

It is worth noting that white Protestants are some of the least educated and least wealthy people in this country. It is also worth noting that thee same people tend to be the most virulently anti-Muslim and against all other religions for that matter.

There is no God, no Allah, no Nirvana, no nothing supernatural anywhere at any time

According to one world view. You call these things superstition. And yet how many westerners get scammed by e-mail fraud every year? They believe that they will get "free money" from an anonymous person in Nigeria. You don't call that superstition. Isn't it the same thing?

and all religion is intended to control the masses an enrich the leaders.

Perhaps. But then what of those of us who are a minority? We are holding out against having YOUR culture and YOUR leaders tell us what to do. Is that why you hate western Muslims so much?

Besides... Nationalism. Communism. Nativism. Racism. Democracy. Capitalism. Pretty much any 'ism'... Aren't all of those just as much a method for social control? When people praise nationalism what they are really doing is saying that they are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country. Leaders don't have to pay them. They WILLINGLY give up their lives. For yet another fictional cause.

Atheism is far from a coherent set of beliefs;

There are certain core ideas that many who define themselves as atheist adhere to. Their beliefs are coherent and logical. It IS a systematic world view. A paradigm. Even a religion.

it is instead an objective, scientific appraisal of reality that rejects subjective, wishfull fantasies and insists on clarity of thought and mind.

No such thing. Human beings cannot objectively observe reality because we are limited in our ability to perceive it. When you identify with your race or your country or the religion that you were born into you cease being objective. When you start to say that human life is any more (or less) valuable than an elephant or a fish or an ant you have ceased being objective. Even your ability to observe and understand reality is limited by language and the way you grew up. Your brain gets set in its ways.

Atheism is not and never has been identified as a religion except by those religious fanatics

If someone asks you what your religion is do you not say 'atheist'? 'Atheist' is a religious belief in as much as that one labels oneself 'atheist.' And there are atheist fanatics just as much as anything else.

who reject the ability of the mind of man to perceive and comprehend reality.

Not all of us do that. Being Muslim does not mean that I suddenly stop believing in observable phenomena. The only real difference is that I accept the existence of another plane of reality and life after death. Would you even have such conversations if I believed in psychic powers and ghosts because the two aren't that different.

Sez me, if it matters.

A non-Muslim with an agenda who has taken his talking points from what may very well be a right wing Christian blog? Seems rather non-objective of you.

Am I to take it that you deny the subjugation of women under the qur'an?

I do as a matter of fact.

I can take the time to go chapter and verse to make the point but I would rather not waste my time

Or because you can't.

as I know you are aware that throughout the religious history of Islam, women have had no rights, ever.

Absolute BOLLOCKS. Women have legal rights in marriage. And they can divorce their husbands as well. Women have legal rights in business. Women (are supposed to) receive equal education to men. Women are not relegated to second class citizens. They go to prayers just like men. They have the same restrictions as men (ie no pork or alocohol and fasting during ramazan and so forth).

Tell me did you know that we consider Muhammad's daughter Fatima to be infallible? That one of the major sources of conflict in Islam arose because Abu Bakr REFUSED to acknowledge Fatima's legal inheritance of the land of Fadak after Muhammad's death and that most of the Muslim scholars of her day actually supported her claim? Did you know that Muslim women ruled both Egypt and Yemen at points in history? And that women received education and promotions regardless of sex or even religion?

Nope... I don't think you did. Because you are a non-Muslim. You don't know our religion or culture or history. You are merely parroting back hatred and ignorance. Not very 'scientific' of you.

rather to the 'usual' suspects on the forum who claim the status of the amoral, who bleat that there are no absolutes, no moral values and that everything is subjective and relative.

First you claim to be an objective observer. Now you want to view the world in black-and-white. It seems to me that you just made my point for me. You place your own values and ideologies on people. That's not logic. It's the height of hubris.

I don't question that Islam has moral absolutes, I just detest them.

Without even knowing them. Likely your moral absolutes intersect with mine more than you want to admit.

Having an 'ideaology' (sic) means having an idea, a thought process, thinking, flawed or not, whereas 'faith' requires no thought, just acceptance and belief

There isn't much difference. Nationalism assumes that your country is the best and that your entire identity is predicated on it. Communism likewise assumes that the government is really your friend and wants to provide for you. All of these are predicated on the false notion that the government knows best and will protect/serve you. Which is of course complete BOLLOCKS.

Besides believing in religion doesn't preclude the ability for independent thought. In fact personal interpretation plays an important role in Islam (and especially in our legal and philosophical traditions).

and the really comedic bending over, ass up, five times a day on your knees before an imaginary supernal being.

And I only pray three times a day which shows how much you know. Its not so different form masses of brainwashed schoolchildren rising to recite the pledge of allegiance every day or people taking off their hats when entering buildings. Simply another ritual and one which I choose to participate in.

Persia, North Africa, following the Industrial Revolution, lay fallow until the discovery of oil.

Not much oil in North Africa. Libya maybe but certainly not Morocco and the like. And in fact quite the opposite European powers were eager to claim the wealth of the Muslim world far earlier than that. The Dutch in the East Indies for the Spice Trade. Napoleon's invasion of North Africa. The British in India. The slave trade in West and East Africa. Need I go on?

Islam was cloistered and living off its' curved sword and herds of horses and camels

Islam was spreading throughout the centuries. Islam was spreading throughout Indonesia in the 17th century. The Ottoman Empire finally conquered Constantinople in 1453 and reached Vienna in 1529 continuing onward (albeit weakened) as a power into the 20th century. In the 16th century the Timurids conquered most of India and established the Mughal Empire (which lasted into the 19th century).

Barbary Corsairs dominated the Mediterranean for centuries... up into the 18th century or so in fact. And in West Africa there were a succession of major Muslim states and conversions throughout the 19th century. Most notably Utman dan Fodio's Fulani jihad and the Toucouleur Empire. There were also the various Hausa city-states and the Bornu Empire (which dominated Lake Chad and even spread further in the 16th and 17th centuries). Then you have the Cacucasian Imams who fought against the Russians in the 19th century. Conversions in Cameroon. Zanzibar and East Africa. Etc.

until the petro dollars gave the Sheiks the means to buy white women for their harems,

Funny that you guys always go for those orientalist fantasies. I suppose you could say Arabs and Persians are 'white' anyway. But personally I'd much rather have a hot Egyptian or Palestinian girl than some 900 lb trailer trash from Missouri...

guns and tanks for their cavalrymen.

Ottomans were one of the earliest countries in Europe to adopt gunpowder...

Argh, I did limit 'feudal' to the middle east, my bad. Apply the term to Islam, Muslims, whereever they have migrated to and whatever society they have infiltrated and corrupted.

So an oil-rich monarchy like Saudi Arabia is the same as a representational republic like Turkey or Malaysia? A failed and impoverished state like Somalia is the same as a consumer-driven state like the UAE? Senegal is the same as Bangaldesh?

Not actually, about 70 percent of American's Polled, are opposed to constructing that building on that site.

And I say tough shit. Private property trumps hurt feelings and bigotry.

I am fully in support of religious freedom, as long as it remains separated from the functions of government.

Then tell the repubs to get out of it. None of their business.

Therein, lies the rub, Islam sees government as the enforcement body for the Koran, all, or most middle east nations are theocracies in which religion rules.

Again I call bollocks on this. Turkey and Egypt are not theocracies. Most Middle Eastern countries aren't theocracies. And besides which you only are examining a small part of the Muslim world. You intentionally ignore Indonesia. Albania. Senegal. Morocco. Bangladesh. Why? Because you don't want to think about how diverse we really are.

And that is the worst possible outcome for a conflict between ideology and faith.

Maybe you should tell that to your party.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The great atheist fallacy is the belief that the atheist is all-knowing and correctly concludes that no God exists.

 

[al_Ussa]

The great atheist fallacy is the belief that the atheist is all-knowing and correctly concludes that no God exists.

Why am I not surprised there. James is another closet baptist trolling around a porn site. Funny as hell. So jimmy boy what do you think your pastor would say if he found out about this? Hahah... hes probably too busy buggering you to notice.

http://porn-gal.com/cg/btaw/42/15.jpg

http://porn-gal.com/cg/btaw/30/09.jpg

 

[AngeloMichael]

I am not a fan of any organized religion. I do not care for the practices of many muslims, in particular their treatment of women as second class citizens.

But I will defend to the death a person's right to believe in whatever faith s/he wants to in this country and their right to have places of worship.

On the flip side of that, this means I will not tolerate abusing others or denying others their rights to their own beliefs as a matter of faith or what have you.

If you are guilty of stoning a woman, you go to jail. However if you believe that it is all right, even necessary in the eyes of God to stone a woman or just believe that those who act this way should not be condemned, but still you do not act yourself in this matter, well then, nothing I can do, it's what you believe. I may not like it, just like I don't like Christians who believe being gay is a mortal sin, I won't try to deny you your right to believe it.

People's beliefs are going to clash, there's no stopping that, get over it. It will be ugly at times. But to try to outlaw a type of people for their beliefs to save this country is getting rid of one of the main principles that I love so much about this country, and if we start sacrificing our principles to save us, I don't see us as really worth saving.

Amicus, you and I are never going to see eye to eye. We can both argue until we are blue in our faces and neither of us will budge an inch. I recognize that, but those are my beliefs, I've put them out there, take them and take me for what you will.

And for the record, I do enjoy discussions with you, like when we discuss science fiction movies, books, etc. I wish you'd start more threads like those, because, and I know I'm beating a dead horse here but I'll say it this once just the same, you have become increasingly insufferable in these political threads. But do as you will, it is your prerogative, something I would never think of denying you.

 

[MeeMie]

Sorry. Wrong forum.

 

[cloudy]

Oh, dear fucking god.

The crazies are congregating here now.

 

[MeeMie]

Sorry. Wrong forum.

 

[Seduc1ove]

Hence the need to separate church and state.

 

[bronzeage]

All generalizations are wrong.

Some Muslims do bad things, therefore all Muslims are bad.

Stoning a woman caught in the act of adultery was in practice long before Mohammed. The places where it was practiced, kept doing it. Maybe they are slow learners.

There are plenty of places where Islam is the dominant religion, but no one considers stoning a good way to deal with the problem.

I know a few decent Baptists. All very nice compassionate people. If I judged them by the standards of Westboro Baptist Church, I might be inclined to throw stones at them.

If I were the type to make a fallacious argument against Baptists and claim the Baptist Church was evil in all its forms, Westboro would be a good example to use. A stupid person might fall for this claim.

A person who crafts an argument like this would have to be stupid as well, or maybe just evil.

In either case, I am sure the stupidity and evil would be sincere.

 

[Seduc1ove]

All generalizations are wrong.

Some Muslims do bad things, therefore all Muslims are bad.

Stoning a woman caught in the act of adultery was in practice long before Mohammed. The places where it was practiced, kept doing it. Maybe they are slow learners.

There are plenty of places where Islam is the dominant religion, but no one considers stoning a good way to deal with the problem.

I know a few decent Baptists. All very nice compassionate people. If I judged them by the standards of Westboro Baptist Church, I might be inclined to throw stones at them.

If I were the type to make a fallacious argument against Baptists and claim the Baptist Church was evil in all its forms, Westboro would be a good example to use. A stupid person might fall for this claim.

A person who crafts an argument like this would have to be stupid as well, or maybe just evil.

In either case, I am sure the stupidity and evil would be sincere.

Isn't "all generalizations are wrong" itself a generalization?

 

[bronzeage]

Isn't "all generalizations are wrong" itself a generalization?

Ohhhhhhhh. You caught me.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Isn't "all generalizations are wrong" itself a generalization?

yes, it's the exception that proves the rule.

 

[Carnevil9]

Sorry, Amicus, but you have two major errors in your otherwise excellent post:

1. You state that atheism is not a religion. Of course it is. It is a firm belief in something that cannot possibly be proven or disproved. Agnosticism, I'll grant, is not a religion, but atheism surely is since it is based totally on faith.

2. You state that Islam is a religion. It is not. It was founded by a warlord for the purpose of whipping his troops into a churning frenzy so that he could conquer the world. Nothing has changed since the beginning. Islam is the same sort of animal as Nazism.

 

[Seduc1ove]

Ohhhhhhhh. You caught me.

You can't get one past me.

yes, it's the exception that proves the rule.

It doesn't seem to fit with any of the usages for that proverb. :/

 

[Boota]

This is slightly painful, but I do have to agree with Amicus on one point. Atheism is not a religion. Only religionists say that that in order to attempt to weaken the argument of atheism. Atheism has no rigid set of beliefs. Just a solid disbelief.
_______
I hate all religion. I think faith is a bad thing. That doesn't change my position on the so called "Ground Zero mosque". The answer for all Americans is in the Constitution. You don't need to look further. The choice is simple - support the Constitution or support bin Laden. Allowing his attack to achieve further success by letting it dictate the execution of our system of governance is unacceptable to me. Fighting to allow the suspension of the rights of peaceable Americans in good standing is giving him a greater victory than even knocking down the WTC. America giving in to this knee knocking fear is repulsive to me. What a bunch of pussies.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You can't get one past me.



It doesn't seem to fit with any of the usages for that proverb. :/

Yet another exception that proves a rule.

But actually, the usage is; "(with the exception of this one), all generalities are incorrect."