Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

New Video by DawahFilms

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 5
 [ 99 posts ] 
New Video by DawahFilms
Author Message
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

Dogma's Demise wrote:I won't support the importation of barbaric values into Europe. You can whine all you want about it, but you know it's going to make your society a better place if certain individuals were filtered out. ;)


If it wasn't for the fact that UB would stand beside his flimsy, bullshit argument stances then I'd have pegged you as a sockpuppet.

I'm going to say to you what was said to him when hewas discussing the removal of the Freedom of Press, Speech, to Gather, Religion, etc. in the name of those same freedoms in the form of banning Religion outright altogether.

Yes. Banning and prohibiting freedom in the name of freedom. I can't imagine how that could possibly go wrong.
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:44 pm
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4347Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

Dogma's Demise wrote: You can whine all you want about it, but you know it's going to make your society a better place if certain individuals were filtered out. ;)


Have I just steped into 1930s Germany? I'd be careful if I were you, I hear certain individuals who want to limit freedom should be filtered out.
Image
Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:34 pm
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

australopithecus wrote:
Dogma's Demise wrote: You can whine all you want about it, but you know it's going to make your society a better place if certain individuals were filtered out. ;)


Have I just steped into 1930s Germany? I'd be careful if I were you, I hear certain individuals who want to limit freedom should be filtered out.


"The internal expurgation of the Islamic spirit is not possible in any platonic way. For the Islamic spirit as the product of the Muslim person. Unless we expel the Muslims. Unless we expel the Muslims soon, they will have infected our people within a very short time."
-Dogma's Demise
A summary of his public stance in the League of Reason
June 19, 2012


If you name it's direct comparison, then I'll give you a cookie.
Mods are disqualified since they can see post edits.
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:53 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

australopithecus wrote:I hear certain individuals who want to limit freedom should be filtered out.


What are the odds he'll actually ever see the irony?
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:15 pm
Dogma's DemisePosts: 576Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:23 am

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

Prolescum wrote:Really? How about this:

terrorism is heavily correlated with Islam


You are saying either that Muslims are more likely to be terrorists or that terrorists are more likely to be Muslims. Both are categorically untrue, and are blanket statements about Muslims.


Muslims are overrepresented in terrorist attacks worldwide at this time compared to any other religious group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Is ... st_attacks

And that's just scratching the surface. Some people have compiled even longer lists: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks sorted per year. The amount is staggering. Even if you filter out the ones that are just murders and not real terrorist attacks, you're still left with a ton of them.

A 2009 report shows that most terrorists deaths were due to Muslim perpetrators. They've killed 9 times the amount Christians killed that year.

Top 3 countries with the highest body count were, surprise: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan!

http://www.nctc.gov/witsbanner/docs/200 ... rorism.pdf

Please see pages 16 and 18 in particular.

When have you ever seen widespread Christian terrorist attacks of equal scale?


If Islam had any major support in Europe, this site wouldn't even exist and most atheists would still be in the closet, both IRL and on the Internet. And that's not a matter of speculation, but of track record.


Well, okay, I'll retract that statement, but I can say that the more Islamic extremists there are in Europe the less free our societies would become. So you bring in more Muslims without filtering for radical mindsets, you'll inevitable get more radicals as well. It's directly proportional. And right now there's more fundamentalism in the Islamic world than in the Christian west.


Islam propagates by immigration + higher birthrates


You are positing a conspiracy of Muslims to emigrate and populate European countries. This is utterly stupid and is a blanket statement about Muslims.


I don't think there's necessarily any conspiracy. I think that's just the way things are due to a variety of factors. Muslims do have more children, and if I had a guess, I'd say it's the highly religious ones. Not because they're thinking "hey, let's conquer Europe by overwhelming them with babies" but because that's how religion is in general, obsessed with the family unity and being fruitful and multiplying. More secular people tend to less fruitful.

And I do realize that just because they're born in a Muslim household they won't necessarily stay Muslim, but in practice, few people ever question the worldview they were born into, especially if they're not encouraged to.

There ARE however some Muslims who are aware of the demographic change and hope to push the Islamization of the west. You have MB funding pressure groups who whine about Islamophobia, while in their own mind they think about destroying the west from within as they were exposed during the Holy Land Foundation trial, you have IFE fanatics in East London, you have Saudi projects and I'm probably just scratching the surface here. Who know how many other subversive groups there are.

Gaddafi himself was aware of the demographic change when he said: There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe,without swords, without guns, without conquest,will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.

http://paa2007.princeton.edu/download.a ... onId=70869

See for example Austria (the first table):

Their total fertility rate has always been a step ahead of all other groups and the non-religious have the least children (although numbers are growing by deconversion).

Of women 0.9% were Muslim 30 years ago.
1.9% 20 years ago
4.6% 10 years ago. (And it's safe bet it's a similar number with men.)

Other statistics showed Muslims were 4.22% of the population 10 years ago and now they're about 6% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Austria

Situation is similar in France and Netherlands, Moroccan immigrants are having more children. And since the vast majority of Moroccans are Muslim, it's safe to say Muslims are having more children.

And I wonder, how many of them are going to respect the more or less secular nature of their new country? Because like it or not, the prophet's example was not that of a secularist, in fact you can clearly see he was against it. For him Islam and the state were one. It was both a religion and a model by which the state should be run and the Sharia had rules for almost everything: sin, crime and punishment, marriage, civil matters, trade, apostasy, the status of non-Muslims (dhimmis, who had to pay the jizya, they had some degree of autonomy but ultimately answered to an Islamic power that could not be removed, so you had essentially an apartheid society).

For Islam to co-exist happily in Europe it needs to remain in a non-political, non-intrusive, personal form.

Or atheists need to become more involved in deconverting Muslims. I dunno, maybe they're afraid. :P After all, it's a lot more risk free to just pwn some stupid creationist.

What about the Christian Democratic Union Party? You know, the ones in power in Germany right now? What about all the other "Christian Democracy" parties? If you're against Islamist parties, you should be against Christian ones too, non? Why aren't you telling Germans to get rid of Angela Merkel?

What about the Christian-Democratic National Peasants' Party, you know, the one in Romania? What about the New Generation Party? They're also Christian Democrat... and Romanian. You should be writing letters to your MP to get these evil religionists banned!


Okay, I'll have to rethink that, perhaps I've set too many unrealistic standards here, so I guess I'll just say that as long as they're not blatantly theocratic...

About the Christian-Democratic National Peasants' Party, let me tell you something, they were in power between 1996 and 2000 and Romania did not turn into a theocracy.

Their ideology states:

ConcepÅ£ia creÅŸtină ne oferă un fundament etic pentru o politică responsabilă. Valorile creÅŸtine se dovedesc necesare comunităÅ£ii omeneÅŸti. Există o legătură à®ntre valorile creÅŸtine, drepturile omului ÅŸi idealurile democratice: libertate ÅŸi responsabilitate, egalitate fundamentală à®ntre oameni, solidaritate ÅŸi dreptate. Chiar ÅŸi raÅ£ionalistii moderni au preluat à®n gandirea lor (ConstituÅ£ia SUA, ConvenÅ£ia drepturilor omului de la Strasbourg, etc.) drepturi ale omului ÅŸi ale cetăÅ£enilor, caracteristice creÅŸtinismului.

Europa este à®ntemeiată pe cultura creÅŸtină, iar Romà¢nia este un leagăn al creÅŸtinismului. PNÅ¢CD este un partid laic, de orientare creÅŸtină, deschis oricui care afirmă demnitatea ÅŸi libertatea tuturor oamenilor.


Translation wrote:Christian concept offers us a moral foundation for responsible politics. Christian values prove necessary to the human community. There exists a connection between Christian values, human rights and democratic ideals: liberty and responsibility, fundamental equality between people, solidarity and justice. Even the modern rationalists have adopted in their thinking (US Constitution, Strasbourg human rights convention, etc.) human rights of the citizens, characteristic Christendom's.

Europe is founded on a Christian culture, and Romania is a crable of Christianity. PNTCD is a secular party, with a Christian orientation, open to anyone who affirms dignity and liberty for all people.



For the record, I don't necessarily agree with that, I would say human rights and democratic ideals are HUMANIST concepts.

But as you can see their doctrine is not necessarily authoritarian or oppressive.
"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Last edited by Dogma's Demise on Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:38 am
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4347Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

When have you ever seen widespread Christian terrorist attacks of equal scale?


The UK. 1969 to 1998.
Image
Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:58 am
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

When have you ever seen widespread Christian terrorist attacks of equal scale?


Only someone with an extremely narrow and uneducated view of both history and politics would ask such a silly question.

The Protestant Reformation.
The Inquisition.
The Crusades.
Bloody Mary and the reformation of the English Government?
The IRA/UK warfare?
The French Resistance?
Hitler and the November Rallies?

Come on, now. I'm an American. Aren't you supposed to be the one who knows European History?

In America, there could be:
The Conquistadors
The Trail of Tears/Native American warfare.
The Brown Rebellion.
The New York riots via the Catholic Irish and the Native Protestant schism.
Abortion Clinic bombings.
The actions of the KKK - including the bombings in Birmingham and the slaying of Martin Luther King Jr. and subsequent lynchings, riots, and so on.
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:37 am
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4347Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

What's betting those examples don't count for some reason?
Image
Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:01 am
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

australopithecus wrote:What's betting those examples don't count for some reason?

20 Pounds and a steak dinner.

:lol:
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:33 am
Dogma's DemisePosts: 576Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:23 am

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

I'm not necessarily "ignoring" it, I simply contest that Christians commit terrorism at about the same rate as Muslims.

There are some category errors in your post as well.

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:The Protestant Reformation.
The Inquisition.
The Crusades.
Bloody Mary and the reformation of the English Government


The problem is, you're mentioning past events centuries ago that are no longer relevant, for example the Catholic Church isn't as dangerous as it once was (it no longer holds the power nor the desire to kill people for being heretic or start wars), and some of the examples shouldn't even be considered terrorism, but rather warfare or theocracy-related.

But if you want to play that game, well then I can add all the Islamic conquests and call them "terrorism" instead of warfare (and I should be well aware of that, my ancestors were constantly besieged by the Ottoman Empire) and I can also add all the deaths in contemporary Islamic world that were caused by theocratic institutions (you know, all those killed for blasphemy, apostasy, adultery etc.)

So let's focus on the more recent times, which religious group is doing the most terrorism? Islamic terrorists or Christian terrorists (or someone else)?


)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:The IRA/UK warfare?


Which killed about 3500 people, that doesn't even make a dent in the amount of harm caused by Islamic terrorism worldwide. In one day the 9/11 hijackers managed to kill almost as much people as the Troubles did in 40 years and now there's multiple attacks all over the world, especially in placed like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/index.html


)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:The French Resistance?


Oh please, how is this even religious-related let alone terrorism? What are the French supposed to do when their country is invaded by Nazi German armies?


)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:Hitler and the November Rallies?


Warfare.

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:The Conquistadors


Again, I would prefer that you include the correct category: warfare.

(Not saying that warfare is any better though, but the issue was terrorism not warfare.)

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:The Trail of Tears/Native American warfare.


No comment.

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:The Brown Rebellion.


Non-religious.

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:The New York riots via the Catholic Irish and the Native Protestant schism.
Abortion Clinic bombings.
The actions of the KKK - including the bombings in Birmingham and the slaying of Martin Luther King Jr. and subsequent lynchings, riots, and so on.


Again I'm not denying there aren't Christian terrorists, but all the terrorist reports (worldwide) show that there are far more Islamic terrorist attacks then Christian ones.

I agree that when you look at the big picture (1.5 billion) it's a very tiny minority, but it's still more numerous than the Christian terrorist minority.
"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:13 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

Dogma's Demise wrote:Muslims are overrepresented in terrorist attacks worldwide at this time compared to any other religious group.


This is called shifting the goalposts. Your statement that "terrorism is heavily correlated with Islam" is still untrue, and it is still a blanket statement about Muslims.

Your links aren't really worth addressing because a) it doesn't change that you're wrong, and b) you list two recent warzones and an unstable regime next door to a warzone as your evidence of "terrorism".

That must be the retarded definition of terrorism espoused by the idiots who call themselves neo-cons.

Dogma's Demise wrote:Well, okay, I'll retract that statement, but I can say that the more Islamic extremists there are in Europe the less free our societies would become. So you bring in more Muslims without filtering for radical mindsets, you'll inevitable get more radicals as well. It's directly proportional. And right now there's more fundamentalism in the Islamic world than in the Christian west.


So you retract the statement, and reinstate it in the same sentence. There really is no reasoning with you, is there?

I should start calling you stet.

You get rid of radicals by addressing them face on, not making them martyrs. History is replete with examples of this. I suppose the propaganda sites you visit like thereligionofpeace.com/ don't tell you that.

People are complex
Interaction is complex
Society is complex

As Ambassador Kosh would say, "understanding is a three-edged sword".

What makes you think a one-sided viewpoint achieves anything?
You've called yourself a "militant secularist" when really, you're just a parrot. You don't fight for secularism, you fight for someone else's agenda.
This is why I offered to look at your views through the prism of critical thinking that time (which you refused arguing that it was a ploy to make you look foolish, when it was only to show you why your arguments are flawed).

Ever heard of scepticism? You should try applying it sometime.

Dogma's Demise wrote:I don't think there's necessarily any conspiracy. I think that's just the way things are due to a variety of factors. Muslims do have more children, and if I had a guess, I'd say it's the highly religious ones. Not because they're thinking "hey, let's conquer Europe by overwhelming them with babies" but because that's how religion is in general, obsessed with the family unity and being fruitful and multiplying. More secular people tend to less fruitful.


More children than whom?
How long would it take the few million Muslims in Britain (who for argument's sake are all Wahabbi or an equivalent level of rabid) to out-breed the 58 million locals?
Europe has nearly 800 million people; how many Muslims need to birth how many children over how many years?
Do European Christians not believe in being fruitful and multiplying?

When you say Muslim, you really mean immigrant don't you? We've discussed this before, and the figures you used then didn't apply exclusively to Muslims, and I showed that there is a definite increase in birthrates of citizens rendering your fearmongering moot.

Even if it were true, it is still a blanket statement.

Now I've seen you do this a few times; data and stats that have been debunked are re-used a couple of months later as if nothing had ever happened. For future reference, I do note your use of creationist tactics, even if you don't recognise them as such.

Dogma's Demise wrote:For Islam to co-exist happily in Europe it needs to remain in a non-political, non-intrusive, personal form.


Says you. I notice how you say "for Islam to co-exist happily in Europe..." Still trying to remove the human aspect by using broad terms? Let's see what you really mean to say, shall we?

For Muslims to co-exist happily in Europe they needs to remain non-political and non-intrusive.

There, that's better. :lol:

So your argument is still I don't like them, they should shut up or fuck off.

Irrational.

Dogma's Demise wrote:Or atheists need to become more involved in deconverting Muslims. I dunno, maybe they're afraid. :P After all, it's a lot more risk free to just pwn some stupid creationist.


Atheist isn't a proper noun! There is no coherent group or movement called "Atheism", and deconversion is not the responsibility of atheists. None of the ones I know are "afraid", they're just not arrogant enough to think they have such duties.
I know your experience revolves around YouTube so you can be forgiven for thinking there is an actual atheist philosophy, but those people, like Thunderf00t, Condell, BionicDance et al, are sophists, if not utter cunt-nuggets who confuse secularism and atheism among other things. They're really no better than DawahFilms, and deserve just as much ridicule.

Dogma's Demise wrote:Okay, I'll have to rethink that, perhaps I've set too many unrealistic standards here, so I guess I'll just say that as long as they're not blatantly theocratic...

About the Christian-Democratic National Peasants' Party, let me tell you something, they were in power between 1996 and 2000 and Romania did not turn into a theocracy.


That is entirely beside the point.

Dogma's Demise wrote:Europe is founded on a Christian culture


No it isn't. It's founded upon Greek and Roman cultures with vestiges of Pagan and Islamic culture (among others; we don't live in a vacuum) with a large pot of Christian whitewashing.

There's a reason there's such a thing as an Easter bunny and a Christmas tree.

The point I was making was that whether a political party is based on Christian principles, enlightenment principles or whatever else, they have joined the political process, and you want Muslims excluded based entirely on the fact that they're Muslims.

Way to make a self-fulfilling prophecy.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:17 pm
Dogma's DemisePosts: 576Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:23 am

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

Quick clarification, I did not say "Europe is founded on a Christian culture". That is a translation from that party's statement.

I'll edit my post and quote it to avoid confusion.
"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:23 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

Ah, doesn't really matter.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:33 pm
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4347Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

Dogma's Demise wrote:
)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:The IRA/UK warfare?


Which killed about 3500 people, that doesn't even make a dent in the amount of harm caused by Islamic terrorism worldwide.


Actually it's about 35%, the death toll due to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is around 10,000.
Image
Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:58 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

For some reason, I forgot to laugh at this:

Dogma's Demise wrote:the issue was terrorism not warfare



Dogma's Demise wrote:A 2009 report shows that most terrorists deaths were due to Muslim perpetrators. They've killed 9 times the amount Christians killed that year.

Top 3 countries with the highest body count were, surprise: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan!
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:06 pm
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

Dogma's Demise wrote:I'm not necessarily "ignoring" it, I simply contest that Christians commit terrorism at about the same rate as Muslims.

There are some category errors in your post as well.

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:The Protestant Reformation.
The Inquisition.
The Crusades.
Bloody Mary and the reformation of the English Government


The problem is, you're mentioning past events centuries ago that are no longer relevant, for example the Catholic Church isn't as dangerous as it once was (it no longer holds the power nor the desire to kill people for being heretic or start wars), and some of the examples shouldn't even be considered terrorism, but rather warfare or theocracy-related.

But if you want to play that game, well then I can add all the Islamic conquests and call them "terrorism" instead of warfare (and I should be well aware of that, my ancestors were constantly besieged by the Ottoman Empire) and I can also add all the deaths in contemporary Islamic world that were caused by theocratic institutions (you know, all those killed for blasphemy, apostasy, adultery etc.)

So let's focus on the more recent times, which religious group is doing the most terrorism? Islamic terrorists or Christian terrorists (or someone else)?


WHAT? I thought the goalpost was closer 5 minutes ago!
You can't pull the "that was THEN" card. The subject is a direct statement I was addressing was that Christianity was less dangerous than Islam - to which I have already made the argument and capped with Enlightenment ideals.
You dismissed my argument without actually adressing it.
When you cite the countries you did, you were explicitly citing areas without enlightenment ideals. If you can cite uncivilized barbarians, then I can as well.

And terrorism is not based upon who does the actions - government or not - but upon the tactics, motives and goals. State-sponsored terrorism is still terrorism. In Warfare, terrorist actions are still considered terrorism.
Don't play hardball with me on what is and isn't terrorism. This is my field.

Dogma's Demise wrote:
)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:The IRA/UK warfare?


Which killed about 3500 people, that doesn't even make a dent in the amount of harm caused by Islamic terrorism worldwide. In one day the 9/11 hijackers managed to kill almost as much people as the Troubles did in 40 years and now there's multiple attacks all over the world, especially in placed like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/index.html


Based upon the numbers you cited, it's around 30 or so percent. Hardly 100%, but when combined with the rest equally as effective.

Dogma's Demise wrote:
)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:The French Resistance?


Oh please, how is this even religious-related let alone terrorism? What are the French supposed to do when their country is invaded by Nazi German armies?


Your numbers actively include religious freedom fighters (insurgents) - mine explicitly do as well.
;)

Dogma's Demise wrote:
)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:Hitler and the November Rallies?


Warfare.

An active campaign against civilians that resulted in death in attempt to strike terror with an exterior goal or a political statement qualifies as terrorism.

Dogma's Demise wrote:
)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:The Conquistadors


Again, I would prefer that you include the correct category: warfare.


God. Gold. Glory.
Slash and burn tactics, intentional disease-spreading, hostage-taking, rape, etc. that intentionally targeted civilians in order to with exterior goals and political statements.

Terrorism.

Dogma's Demise][quote=")O( Hytegia )O( wrote:The Trail of Tears/Native American warfare.


No comment.[/quote]


Dogma's Demise wrote:
)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:The Brown Rebellion.


Non-religious.


Skimming over Wikipedia does not qualify as a historical education, friend. You should just retake your classes.
John Brown's actions the entire time was backed by a holy and divine urge to free others. He even admitted this upon his conviction.


Dogma's Demise wrote:
)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:The New York riots via the Catholic Irish and the Native Protestant schism.
Abortion Clinic bombings.
The actions of the KKK - including the bombings in Birmingham and the slaying of Martin Luther King Jr. and subsequent lynchings, riots, and so on.


Again I'm not denying there aren't Christian terrorists, but all the terrorist reports (worldwide) show that there are far more Islamic terrorist attacks then Christian ones.

I agree that when you look at the big picture (1.5 billion) it's a very tiny minority, but it's still more numerous than the Christian terrorist minority.

Cite the numbers for that comparison, then.
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Last edited by )O( Hytegia )O( on Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:51 pm
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

Oh. Austra.

Instead of 20 pounds and a steak dinner, you can just hop online and order me a pizza and we'll call it even.
I'm famished!
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:06 pm
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4347Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

I never took the bet....

Image
Image
Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:18 pm
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

australopithecus wrote:I never took the bet....
*trolled.jpg*


Yes.
I suppose it's bad practice to accept losing bets.
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:48 pm
Dogma's DemisePosts: 576Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:23 am

Post Re: New Video by DawahFilms

Prolescum wrote:
Dogma's Demise wrote:Muslims are overrepresented in terrorist attacks worldwide at this time compared to any other religious group.


This is called shifting the goalposts. Your statement that "terrorism is heavily correlated with Islam" is still untrue, and it is still a blanket statement about Muslims.


So what do you call when during the course of a year over half of all terrorist attacks worldwide are committed by Muslims in the name of their religion?

I'm just telling you the patterns I see here, if I said almost all rapes are committed by men would you say I'm making blanket statements about men?

Prolescum wrote:Your links aren't really worth addressing because a) it doesn't change that you're wrong, and b) you list two recent warzones and an unstable regime next door to a warzone as your evidence of "terrorism".

That must be the retarded definition of terrorism espoused by the idiots who call themselves neo-cons.


What exactly is your definition of terrorism then?

If you look over the cases listed there, you'll find many Muslim attacks against OTHER Muslims and against civilians, for some politico-religious goal. So I'm not sure what you're trying to imply. If this isn't terrorism then WTF is? We're not talking about just some rebels attacking US troops to get them out of the country, you have Hamas attacking Fatah, you have crazed suicide bombers targeting civilians for Bob knows what reason, you have Shiites attacking Sunnis, Sunnis attacking Shiites.

As for the argument "Well, they're just not exposed to enlightenment values", okay, so expose them then.

So you retract the statement, and reinstate it in the same sentence. There really is no reasoning with you, is there?


And how exactly is it factually incorrect?

Take a set of a million coins (copper and silver ones, copper for extremist, silver for moderate with X% - whatever that number may be - of them being copper). Then randomly select, let's say, 2000 coins, blindfolded. No filtering whatsoever. You're going to get copper coins at roughly the same X percentage.

You import people from a culture where misogyny, theocracy and other detrimental values are considered good, you gotta be prepared to face the consequences.


I should start calling you stet.

You get rid of radicals by addressing them face on, not making them martyrs. History is replete with examples of this. I suppose the propaganda sites you visit like thereligionofpeace.com/ don't tell you that.


Hey I'm not saying this isn't a bad approach, but what if it's sometimes not enough? You really think you can just reason with all those Islamist theocrats?

People are complex
Interaction is complex
Society is complex


I don't deny the complexity of the issue. That's why re-considering immigration, integration of immigrants, multiculturalism etc. should not be off the table. You can't really ignore that that's the main way Islam has gained numbers in Europe. If it were just European citizens converting en mass to Islam, then I would have a different approach to the issue.


As Ambassador Kosh would say, "understanding is a three-edged sword".

What makes you think a one-sided viewpoint achieves anything?
You've called yourself a "militant secularist" when really, you're just a parrot. You don't fight for secularism, you fight for someone else's agenda.


Do tell me, who is this "someone else"?


More children than whom?


Non-Muslim

How long would it take the few million Muslims in Britain (who for argument's sake are all Wahabbi or an equivalent level of rabid) to out-breed the 58 million locals?


Honestly, it is hard to calculate, you've seen the numbers for Britain on page 6 for example haven't you? The fertility rate keeps dropping, although Muslims seem to be a step ahead of everyone else.


Europe has nearly 800 million people; how many Muslims need to birth how many children over how many years?
Do European Christians not believe in being fruitful and multiplying?


European Christians in all fairness are not that religious, they've become very secularized, many even deconverted and are now atheists.


When you say Muslim, you really mean immigrant don't you? We've discussed this before, and the figures you used then didn't apply exclusively to Muslims, and I showed that there is a definite increase in birthrates of citizens rendering your fearmongering moot.


We didn't discuss this link before.

Well the statistics on Britain weren't collected on Muslims, but they were on Pakistanis, and most of them are Muslim.

Now, you showed a slight increase in recent times but it was still below the replacement level. It's not certain it will last.

Image

Even if it were true, it is still a blanket statement.


So "society is complex" but demographic change means nothing?

Now I've seen you do this a few times; data and stats that have been debunked are re-used a couple of months later as if nothing had ever happened. For future reference, I do note your use of creationist tactics, even if you don't recognise them as such.


We've never discussed that link.


Dogma's Demise wrote:Or atheists need to become more involved in deconverting Muslims. I dunno, maybe they're afraid. :P After all, it's a lot more risk free to just pwn some stupid creationist.


Atheist isn't a proper noun! There is no coherent group or movement called "Atheism", and deconversion is not the responsibility of atheists. None of the ones I know are "afraid", they're just not arrogant enough to think they have such duties.


So you don't want filtering of immigrants, you don't want to shut down NGOs that preach extremism and subversion, you don't want to block foreign Saudi / extremist regime funding, you don't want to consider integration because it's "nationalist" and any amount of national preservation is bad, and you don't even want to encourage Muslims to leave their religion either because that's "arrogant" so basically you think even the most benign approach is bad. Am I missing something here?


I know your experience revolves around YouTube so you can be forgiven for thinking there is an actual atheist philosophy, but those people, like Thunderf00t, Condell, BionicDance et al, are sophists, if not utter cunt-nuggets who confuse secularism and atheism among other things. They're really no better than DawahFilms, and deserve just as much ridicule.


Dude, I've been atheist for much longer than the so-called "YouTube atheist community" came along.

I don't think it's a fair comparison though. DawahFilms is a religious extremist who wants (among other things):

- the abolition of secularism
- the abolition of human rights
- the re-establishment of the Caliphate
- he has said that apostates in Islam deserve the death penalty
- he thinks flogging is acceptable form of punishment

Thunderf00t simply wants a secular country where no religious group has any power over the others (or over atheists).

And you really think you're qualified to judge my critical thinking skills when you can't even see the difference between a secularist and a religious nutjob like DF? BionicDance is even less "aggressive" than Thunderf00t, how the hell does she deserve the same ridicule as DF?

The point I was making was that whether a political party is based on Christian principles, enlightenment principles or whatever else, they have joined the political process, and you want Muslims excluded based entirely on the fact that they're Muslims.

Way to make a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Let's clarify that shall we?

I don't want to exclude Muslims from politics. They should be in politics, just not push a religious agenda on people.

I mean they already do this in Turkey, a Muslim country, are they Islamophobic against their own religion?
"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:22 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 5
 [ 99 posts ] 
Return to Online Video

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests