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.

So the atheist "movement"...

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 15 of 16
 [ 304 posts ] 
So the atheist "movement"...
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:I noticed that a major error you made wasn't addressed. There's actually no significant rise in KKK membership. Membership will fluctuate, but the trend is clear. It's going down in the long term.


As usual, I didn't at any point claim that there is a 'significant rise in KKK membership' in terms of its entire history.

However, as the source I cited showed, there has been a recent rise in KKK membership, and you asserting otherwise does not change that.


Tree wrote:Have you considered that the backfire effect might apply to you too?


Of course I have. In reality, I am a very cautious person when it comes to making statements about reality - it comes from scientific training.

It's also why the majority of my interest with you has always been about how high your confidence bar is yet how infrequently you provide anything other than assertions.

When I say 'of course', I mean regarding cognitive bias, though. It can't be the backfire effect because you're not actually presenting any evidence to contradict my position. Also, in terms of discursive positions, mine is the null hypothesis - you are claiming there is a a link between 2 quantities, and I am rejecting that contention due to a lack of evidence and a monstrously poor rationale for the claim.


Tree wrote:
Researchers also asked about how Muslim leaders approach their religion. The majority — 56 percent — said they believe in a flexible interpretation of the Quran and the Sunnah (the way the Islamic prophet Muhammad practiced the religion) that isn’t always literal and takes into account modern life.


This information is not coming from a reliable source as these surveys were released by:

Council on American-Islamic Relations
Islamic Society of North America
Islamic Circle of America


Because you decree so.

Of course, in reality they are a dramatically more reliable source than you. But hey. it's the backfire effect.

For them to be unreliable in this context, they'd have to be manipulating the data towards a desired end. Ergo, for your knee-jerk denial to have any logic, they'd need to intentionally be pretending that 56 percent of Muslim imams in the US believe in a flexible interpretation of the Quran in order to deceive us into thinking they are more progressive. Aside from this obviously requiring them to be motivated by this (a fact you couldn't hope to establish) it would also raise questions as to why they didn't fudge the numbers more and get rid of the large minority of conservative imams.

Of course, you won't feel the slightest need to address reality here as you will just make up a response regardless of it possessing any sense of logic, reason, or evidence.



Tree wrote:These are organizations with a vested interest in spreading Islamic apologist propaganda.


That Islamic propaganda being that there is a small majority of progressive Muslim imams? Are you listening to yourself?


Tree wrote:CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism funding case.


Which even if it were wholly correct would still amount to nothing more than well-poisoning on your part, a transparent attempt to protect your cognitive bias. Even were some elements of CAIR to be involved in funding terrorism (rather than supporting Hamas), this wouldn't then produce a link to why they would manipulate data to make a slight majority of imams in the US appear to be progressives. The logical gap here is a chasm.

This is very clear cognitive bias.



Tree wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/30/fbi-cuts-ties-cair-following-terror-financing-trial.html

CAIR's founders Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad were previously involved with the Islamic Association of Palestine, a group exposed for being a Hamas front and lead by Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas member.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihad_Awad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_A ... _Palestine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousa_Moh ... bu_Marzook

A Muslim Brotherhood member Mohamed Akram Adlouni claimed about both the IAP and ISNA organizations that they are "our organizations and the organizations of our friends".

https://www.investigativeproject.org/do ... eneral.pdf

ISNA has given a platform to apologists like Linda Sarsour, a radical Muslim masquerading as a social justice activist, who mocked Ayaan Hirsi Ali's genital mutilation.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/12852/mu ... nk-berrien


Lolzers at citing Fox after claiming that another source is unreliable.

And it appears you haven't even read the rest of your citations.

For example:

"I am in support of the Hamas movement more than the PLO... there are some [Hamas] radicals, we are not interested in those people.”[3][4] The statement was made before Hamas carried out its first suicide bombing and was designated a terrorist organization by the United States government.


But nevermind, sloppy well-poisoning is very much part of your typical response to any form of contradictory evidence, and I am sure others here can see the complete lack of connection between this and the point I made.


Tree wrote:
The only question I guess that's left is what it would actually take for you to acknowledge an error on your part... any error, really, but one as egregious as your claim to know the minds of the actually not monolithic 1.7 billion people you pretend you can speak for.


I don't know their minds and my life is too short to discern that, all the information I have to go on is their public allegiance, what system of values they claim to hold, and sadly that doesn't make me trust them.


You literally just claimed to know their minds.

No one cares whether you trust 'them', so please stop employing egotistical red herrings. What I am clearly talking about is how you have, repeatedly, claimed to know that they are all motivated by the same single purpose which also happens to include a desire to violently subjugate non-Muslims.

I KNOW you don't know their minds. That's exactly my point.


Tree wrote:
Now, assuming there's a genuine suspicion of seditious or terrorist activity in any given mosque, then such a sting operation might well be legally justified (having, of course, passed the requisite court procedure)


That's an interest case of special pleading.


No, it's really not. It's actually how the world works.


Tree wrote: If detectives were to find a written bank heist plan, they could pretty much charge you with conspiracy even if you never set foot in that bank since attempted robbery is also a crime even if unsuccessful. And you're telling me violent religious texts calling for sedition against non-Muslim governments don't even justify an investigation? Only if you're a PC activist judge. No wonder we can't rein in Islamic terrorism.


No, because in reality only deranged rabid fools like yourself think that the content of scripture makes adherents of that religion criminal, even while repeatedly failing to apply the same standards to other religions.

Of course, sane people know that it is actions which are potentially criminal, not the content of a book they have read.


Tree wrote:A warrant would not be needed anyway because there's no expectation of privacy in most mosques.


Yes, you are asserting counterfactual bullshit as reality.


Tree wrote:The door is left open for the public to enter and that includes on duty cops. It's true for most restaurants, hotel lobbies (not hotel rooms), malls and such. Permission to enter is implicit. They don't need a warrant to obtain information that is visible in plain view either.


Again, while I can understand your need to revise your nonsensical bullshit, we're not talking about a single mosque, but rather your notion about putting covert operatives into all mosques.


Tree wrote:https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html


Your source offers no support for your claim, which is why you didn't cite any excerpt from your source.


Tree wrote:
While I can understand you wanting to evade addressing the question, it obviously doesn't support the claim you made. You need to actually show that 9/11 was motivated by religion for it to be considered so.


You want an answer to the question "In what way was 9/11 a religiously motivated attack?" I already explained it to you.


You routinely fail to grasp this elementary notion. I have talked about it with you since you first arrived.

Your ability to syntactically order words into grammatically correct sentences does not lend that resulting sentence any validity whatsoever. For it to be a valid description of the world, you need to provide evidence. You haven't and you are not a legitimate authority whose word can be trusted as fact.



Tree wrote:Literally every single grievance, including the political ones are rooted in Islamic law. You say "I think it was political." Political and religious are not exclusive when it comes to Islam, so arguing a political motive somehow disproves the religious is nonsense.


Clearly, that's not the case. Clearly, every single grievance was political. And of course, as I answered the last time you tried this obfuscation, of course religion and politics aren't exclusive because they're both held by people who are always both.... however, that lazy attempt doesn't furnish a jot of evidence to support your contention. An action can be motivated by a, or by b, or by both, or by neither. You want to claim that 9/11 was religiously motivated, but you can't show it - only assert it even in the face of contradictory evidence. When shown that evidence, you immediately pull out conspiracy theory claptrap about how the international media is misleading me, thereby also inherently claiming that your assertions in the absence of evidence are a more valid source than, well, reality.

Of course, I am under no obligation to take your insistence as an indication of validity. Quite the contrary.


Tree wrote:That said, you have to be naive to take everything he says at face value. You think he was a terrorist but not a liar? War is deception to these people.


So I have to be naive to take what he says about his motivations at face value, but I am obliged to take what you say are his motivations at face value?

As I said - you have tried the exact same bullshit with me dozens of times. You keep confidently insisting that you know my motivations and positions better than I do, that I am lying because your rendition of my positions is more accurate than my own.

Given this first hand knowledge of how utterly delusional your confidence is, why am I now supposed to believe you got it right this time?

You've made your bed in this regard too many times. I will not accept as valid any assertion you make if you can't support it with real world evidence.


Tree wrote:And Al Qaeda operates in countries that aren't the US and never attacked Muslim countries.


Whereas, in reality al-Qaeda's prominence occurred through them attacking Shias in many Muslim nations.


Tree wrote: They can come up with any excuse they want to paint their cause as defensive, but it's more about offensive warfare.


Because Tree asserts it.


Tree wrote: They don't get along with any non-Muslims, not just Americans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#Activities


Yes, I know which is not much of a sequitur on your part, especially as you've just claimed they never attacked Muslim countries.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:41 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:
Saudi Arabia's senior clerical leadership has issued a new fatwa, or legal ruling, declaring terrorism a "heinous crime" under sharia law – part of an intensifying campaign by the conservative kingdom to undermine the legitimacy of Islamic State (Isis) insurgents in Iraq and Syria and to discourage support for the extremists.

"Terrorism is contrary to the purposes of the great religion of Islam, which came as a mercy to the world … and to ensure the system of worldly coexistence," said the 21-strong council of senior scholars, according to the Saudi Press Agency. "Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, which is innocent of this deviant ideology … [terrorism] is nothing more than corruption and criminality rejected by Islamic sharia law and common sense."

Any Muslim who thinks that jihad (which means "struggle") means joining a terrorist group "is ignorant and has gone astray", the clerics declared on Wednesday.


Pot calling the kettle black.

Saudi Arabia is responsible for funding most of the war propaganda in foreign countries, spread through the mosques they build there, that lead to groups like ISIS appearing.

I care not for their lip service. Their actions speak louder than words. The only thing positive that can be said of that shithole nation is that it's not North Korea.



It's so nice that you're bringing a little slice of Stormfront here.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:59 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Here you go Tree....

https://www.cair.com/images/pdf/The-Ame ... part-1.pdf

Rather than lazy and sloppy well-poisonings to wave it away, can you show any actual methodological or reporting failings in the survey?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:03 am
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Denial as always.

A slight recent increase in the number of KKK members is about as meaningful as a slight increase in a stock price that is on the decline in the long-term. The KKK is dying and you know it.

Do you need to e-mail the manager of the mall before you go in and ask for permission? Idiot. There is implicit permission to enter these places. It doesn't matter if 1 cop enters 1 mall or 10000 cops each enter 10000 malls. The circumstance is exactly the same in each individual case. They don't need a warrant to enter, unless the manager expressly banned them from entering, nor do they need a warrant to gather evidence of a crime that is happening in plain view of where they legitimately are.

You said my source doesn't support my claim. LIES.

A police officer doesn’t need a warrant to seize contraband or evidence that is "in plain view" if the officer is legitimately in the area where the evidence or contraband is first spotted.


See also:

http://slideplayer.com/slide/5958442/
A reasonable expectation of privacy exists in a private residence, hospital, hotel room, private office etc. No Expectation of Privacy in Public or in full view (sidewalks, parks, beaches, stores, restaurants, etc.) An intrusion suit cannot be based on the recording of activities that took place in public


Of course I have. In reality, I am a very cautious person when it comes to making statements about reality - it comes from scientific training.


In this case it comes from agenda.

For them to be unreliable in this context, they'd have to be manipulating the data towards a desired end. Ergo, for your knee-jerk denial to have any logic, they'd need to intentionally be pretending that 56 percent of Muslim imams in the US believe in a flexible interpretation of the Quran in order to deceive us into thinking they are more progressive. Aside from this obviously requiring them to be motivated by this (a fact you couldn't hope to establish) it would also raise questions as to why they didn't fudge the numbers more and get rid of the large minority of conservative imams.


Maybe they did it precisely to seem more plausible to gullible fools like you, how the fuck should I know? They're not a trustworthy source. It's their job to earn my trust, I am not obligated to give them my trust freely and they've done enough to permanently soil their reputation.

It's so nice that you're bringing a little slice of Stormfront here.


It's so nice of you to talk pure crap.

Even were some elements of CAIR to be involved in funding terrorism (rather than supporting Hamas), this wouldn't then produce a link to why they would manipulate data to make a slight majority of imams in the US appear to be progressives. The logical gap here is a chasm.

This is very clear cognitive bias.


If you followed those links you'd know that at least one Muslim Brotherhood member has expressed a desire to engage in a "civilization jihad" which includes fooling westerners into thinking Islam is a positive thing so they'll accept it more.

For it to be a valid description of the world, you need to provide evidence. You haven't and you are not a legitimate authority whose word can be trusted as fact.


I'd be happy to clarify any issue you may have but seeing as you flat out deny any religious motive despite them saying in their manifestos that they hate our drinking and giving women freedom etc and how all their political motivations and actions are based on the Quran or hadiths (even gave you some quotes that you flat out ignored for example the hadith against non-Muslim presence in the Arabian Peninsula because the Arabian Peninsula is supposed to be purely Islamic), it's safe to say you're a lost cause. Nothing I say will ever convince you. The only thing left is to expose you as an intellectual fraud.

Whereas, in reality al-Qaeda's prominence occurred through them attacking Shias in many Muslim nations.


You can't get more dishonest than this.

I said they attacked countries that don't attack other Muslim countries, you fucking moron.

They don't attack just the US, they attack countries in Africa, countries in Europe, countries in Asia etc.

Please tell me what fucking crimes has Thailand supposedly committed against Muslims? Do you not see that the real reason they fight us is because we're not Muslim?

You've wasted enough of my time today, go away.
Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:52 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:Denial as always.


It is amusing when you take my criticism of you and simply parrot it back.

As I said elsewhere, this suggests that your subconscious is actually noting these criticisms even if your cognitive bias filters them out.


Tree wrote:A slight recent increase in the number of KKK members is about as meaningful as a slight increase in a stock price that is on the decline in the long-term. The KKK is dying and you know it.


Isn't it ironic how you assert denial on my part while pretending that you are right even when shown wrong?

How you take an increase to mean a decrease, obviously, holds no purchase for anyone employing reason.


Tree wrote:Do you need to e-mail the manager of the mall before you go in and ask for permission? Idiot. There is implicit permission to enter these places. It doesn't matter if 1 cop enters 1 mall or 10000 cops each enter 10000 malls. The circumstance is exactly the same in each individual case. They don't need a warrant to enter, unless the manager expressly banned them from entering, nor do they need a warrant to gather evidence of a crime that is happening in plain view of where they legitimately are.


You need to call me an idiot because it's the only way you can evade honest discussion - you need it to be personal, and you need to poison the well because your arguments lack any reason or honesty.



Tree wrote:You said my source doesn't support my claim. LIES.


Where does your source say that a nationwide covert operation against all mosques is legal?

Oh wait, it doesn't. But I'm the liar! :D


Tree wrote:
A police officer doesn’t need a warrant to seize contraband or evidence that is "in plain view" if the officer is legitimately in the area where the evidence or contraband is first spotted.


Again, if the FBI wants to conduct a nationwide covert campaign against all mosques, the 'legitimate' component there is a court order.


Tree wrote:See also:

http://slideplayer.com/slide/5958442/
A reasonable expectation of privacy exists in a private residence, hospital, hotel room, private office etc. No Expectation of Privacy in Public or in full view (sidewalks, parks, beaches, stores, restaurants, etc.) An intrusion suit cannot be based on the recording of activities that took place in public


Stores, restaurants, every mosque in the entire nation... oh wait.

Yeah, your source doesn't validate your claims.


Tree wrote:
Of course I have. In reality, I am a very cautious person when it comes to making statements about reality - it comes from scientific training.


In this case it comes from agenda.


Except, of course, you see agendas everywhere because you're a delusional crackpot.



Tree wrote:
For them to be unreliable in this context, they'd have to be manipulating the data towards a desired end. Ergo, for your knee-jerk denial to have any logic, they'd need to intentionally be pretending that 56 percent of Muslim imams in the US believe in a flexible interpretation of the Quran in order to deceive us into thinking they are more progressive. Aside from this obviously requiring them to be motivated by this (a fact you couldn't hope to establish) it would also raise questions as to why they didn't fudge the numbers more and get rid of the large minority of conservative imams.


Maybe they did it precisely to seem more plausible to gullible fools like you, how the fuck should I know?


:lol:

Trumpism. Maybe they're all criminals, how should I know? Well, if you don't know, then what are you wittering about?



Tree wrote: They're not a trustworthy source.


Says you. Of course, you have the authority of a hemorrhoid.

Also, as everyone else here is no doubt instantly aware, they didn't actually conduct the survey - they merely provided some financial support for it.

You would know this if you looked first then made up your mind, instead of knee-jerking your way into denying everything if it disagrees with your spiel.


Tree wrote: It's their job to earn my trust, I am not obligated to give them my trust freely and they've done enough to permanently soil their reputation.


Whereas, in reality it's not their job to earn your trust because you are a nobody whose opinions are terminally irrelevant, and I very much doubt they even know you exist.

A Gnat flew over the meadow with much buzzing for so small a creature and settled on the tip of one of the horns of a Bull. After he had rested a short time, he made ready to fly away. But before he left he begged the Bull's pardon for having used his horn for a resting place.

"You must be very glad to have me go now," he said.

"It's all the same to me," replied the Bull. "I did not even know you were there."



Tree wrote:
It's so nice that you're bringing a little slice of Stormfront here.


It's so nice of you to talk pure crap.


I did a quick search of your wording, and half the hits on the first page were from Stormfront.



Tree wrote:
Even were some elements of CAIR to be involved in funding terrorism (rather than supporting Hamas), this wouldn't then produce a link to why they would manipulate data to make a slight majority of imams in the US appear to be progressives. The logical gap here is a chasm.

This is very clear cognitive bias.


If you followed those links you'd know that at least one Muslim Brotherhood member has expressed a desire to engage in a "civilization jihad" which includes fooling westerners into thinking Islam is a positive thing so they'll accept it more.


One? Great. So about the others? Oh right, they just do because you say so. :)

Also, I did follow the links and cited excerpts of them that contradict your claims.

It is clear why you usually simply assert your spiel rather than attempting to evidence it: when you do bother, your own sources contradict you! :D



Tree wrote:
For it to be a valid description of the world, you need to provide evidence. You haven't and you are not a legitimate authority whose word can be trusted as fact.


I'd be happy to clarify any issue you may have but seeing as you flat out deny any religious motive despite them saying in their manifestos that they hate our drinking and giving women freedom etc and how all their political motivations and actions are based on the Quran or hadiths (even gave you some quotes that you flat out ignored for example the hadith against non-Muslim presence in the Arabian Peninsula because the Arabian Peninsula is supposed to be purely Islamic), it's safe to say you're a lost cause. Nothing I say will ever convince you. The only thing left is to expose you as an intellectual fraud.


I didn't flat out ignore them, liar. I said that you quoting an excerpt from a hadith doesn't them make the motivation for a political attack 'religious'. You're grasping at straws and you cannot support your contention. That's why, as usual, you opt for the personal abuse line.

You seem to be under the erroneous impression that attacking my intelligence or honesty is going to net you points.

In reality, this forum is far too sophisticated for such vacuous demagoguery. In reality, it just shows your argument is so poor that you need to sling poo in order to bring people down to your level.

Of course, I am not at your level, and failing a terrible accident that results in a partial lobotomy, I doubt I ever will be.


Tree wrote:
Whereas, in reality al-Qaeda's prominence occurred through them attacking Shias in many Muslim nations.


You can't get more dishonest than this.


Yes, we've seen the dozen times before where you've called me dishonest, and when they weren't just a reading comprehension flaw on your part, they were merely distractions because you couldn't respond to my argument.


Tree wrote:I said they attacked countries that don't attack other Muslim countries, you fucking moron.


Oh I see. Your garbled run-on sentence before was supposed to mean that al-Qaeda attacked countries which are not in conflict with Muslims. Your point was supposed to be arguing that they aren't fighting in defense, but are on the offense. Aside from this being irrelevant because I haven't argued that they are fighting in self-defense, nor have I suggested any level of agreement with their violent attacks, it still doesn't make any sense with respect to the rest of your inane witterings.

They didn't attack the USA - they attacked people in the USA, in the same way as they attacked people in those Shia nations. Al-Qaeda's prominence actually comes from their attacks on Shias first and foremost, regardless of how you know about them because you are not the litmus test of reality.

It's not my fault your argument was incoherent and nonsensical.


Tree wrote:They don't attack just the US, they attack countries in Africa, countries in Europe, countries in Asia etc.


No, they're not attacking the countries any more than they are attacking the countries in which they kill Shia Muslims.

You can't, obviously, have this both ways. If murdering some people in Manchester means they attacked the UK, then murdering some Shia Muslims in Kabul means they attacked Afghanistan.

Of course, expecting you to make sense or employ logically coherent arguments is obviously an absurd notion in the first place.


Tree wrote:Please tell me what fucking crimes has Thailand supposedly committed against Muslims?


Well, firstly what has this got to do with anything? Secondly, why would I need to answer a question that would require me to take a position I haven't actually argued for?

This is what YOU call a loaded question. It's not, of course, it's just a fucking stupid question.

As for what their beef is with Thailand, sure, I can educate you. Go look at a map of Thailand. See the 3 southern most provinces? Nakhon Si Thammarat, Narathiwat, and Yala... the population of these provinces are predominantly Muslims, and ethnically Malay. These provinces were once part of the sultanates of Kedah and Pattani, but were defeated in battle by the Kingdoms of Sukhothai and Ayuthaya, back and forth over a period of many centuries they won independence, before being conquered again, and the larger dominant polity eventually became the Kingdom of Siam, then of Thailand.

Here's some homework for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Thailand_insurgency


Consequently, there is all manner of friction in these southern states; every generation sees a new swell of nationalist sentiment, and the conflict between these states and Thailand sadly sometimes results in deaths on both sides. Yesterday, for example, a motorcycle bomb (a particular favourite of the Southern separatists) went off killing 3 people and wounding dozens.

Another particularly notorious recent event is the Tak Bai Incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tak_Bai_incident

Almost 1,300 protesters were detained at the scene.[4] They were ordered to strip to the waist, lie on their stomachs, and crawl to nearby trucks that would transport them to another site.[6] Footage taken by journalists confirmed allegations that many protesters were kicked and beaten with sticks even after they complied with orders to lie on the ground.[4][7]

The detainees were then stacked atop one another in trucks and transported to Inkayut Army Camp in Pattani Province. The drive took five hours, and by the time the trucks arrived at the destination, 78 detainees had died from suffocation or organ collapse.


So, yeah, there's obviously sufficient hostility there for groups like al-Qaeda to exploit for their own ends.

You're welcome.


Tree wrote:Do you not see that the real reason they fight us is because we're not Muslim?


So how does that work when they attack Muslims?

Do you not see how empty your arguments are of reason?


Tree wrote:You've wasted enough of my time today, go away.


Get over yourself, regardless of how inflated your sense of self-worth is, you don't own this forum. If you want to dictate who can respond to your drivel, get a blog. I am sure that would satisfy your vanity neatly.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:27 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Anyone want a bet on whether Tree will now call me an al-Qaeda operative to add to the list of evil things I am for not naively genuflecting to his hate-mongering?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:01 am
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Stores, restaurants, every mosque in the entire nation... oh wait.

Yeah, your source doesn't validate your claims.


Stores and restaurants are similar to mosques in the sense that they're open to the wider public.

The number of stores etc that the police enter is irrelevant. From 0 to all of them, doesn't make a difference. The rule is the same in each case. If they're lawfully inside the building they can use any evidence that's in "plain view" to prove a crime including any conversation they overhear. They would only need a warrant for the more private areas like the manager's office.

To clarify, if the police decided to go into every single hotel lobby, they could also do that.


Now you be a good boy and quote mine as saying "Stores and restaurants are similar to mosques".

Trumpism. Maybe they're all criminals, how should I know? Well, if you don't know, then what are you wittering about?


If you want to trust an organization with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by ex-employees of a Hamas front with sympathies to Hamas and an organization that hosts so-called "feminist" Muslims who mock FGM victims and is listed in a Muslim Brotherhood document as either a friendly organization to the MB if not a MB front, go for it.

These organizations are little more than PR for totalitarianism.

CAIR has even been included on a list of terrorist groups by the UAE government due to its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Now I don't particularly trust the UAE government, but what exactly to they have to gain from lying about this? An organization like CAIR, if it were actually "moderate", would not be detrimental to UAE interests. The UAE economy relies heavily on tourism, an "American-Islamic relations" organization can only help not hinder that.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/17/us ... rates.html

Whereas, in reality it's not their job to earn your trust because you are a nobody whose opinions are terminally irrelevant, and I very much doubt they even know you exist.


Then I don't need to listen to what they have to say.

I did a quick search of your wording, and half the hits on the first page were from Stormfront.


Which literally means fuck all.

How about your elaborate on this conspiracy?

In reality, this forum is far too sophisticated for such vacuous demagoguery. In reality, it just shows your argument is so poor that you need to sling poo in order to bring people down to your level.


So they say in the manifesto that they're motivated by religion (like they mentioned our drinking, freedom to women, secular politics and rejection of theocracy) and the part of the motivation that seems purely political has roots in the Quran and hadiths.

You're not "sophisticated" one bit no matter how many times you insist that you're so. Sophisticated people don't need to constantly boast about how great they are. You're in denial and desperate to scrub clean any links between terrorism and the Islamic doctrine.

So how does that work when they attack Muslims?


They attack Muslims they see as apostates because they're not observant enough or because they're Shi'ite which they view as heretical.
Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:57 am
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4346Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

As I don’t have time to wade through posts longer than my uni dissertation, I’ll assume everyone is being nice and civil.

Friendly reminder that not being nice and civil is frowned upon and has consequences.
Image
Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:38 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:Stores and restaurants are similar to mosques in the sense that they're open to the wider public.


Specious reasoning.

Stores and mosques are not alike in that one is seen by the government as a commercial entity, and the other is seen as a place of worship. The First Amendment has no bearing on the former, but clearly does on the latter.


Tree wrote:The number of stores etc that the police enter is irrelevant. From 0 to all of them, doesn't make a difference. The rule is the same in each case. If they're lawfully inside the building they can use any evidence that's in "plain view" to prove a crime including any conversation they overhear. They would only need a warrant for the more private areas like the manager's office.


This is how you typically go about failing to substantiate your claims: by talking about something else that is not relevant.

We were supposedly talking about mosques, not shopping malls, or beaches, or ice-cream parlors, or patisseries etc. etc. etc., so all you are doing by engaging in this bait and switch is showing that you cannot substantiate your claim. Same as usual.

Also, we're not talking about entering an individual mosque, but a hypothetical operation to engage in nationwide covert operations against all mosques.

This is, of course, your 'idea' and I pointed out how absurd it was from the outset, but naturally, you don't really give two hoots about reality.


Tree wrote:To clarify, if the police decided to go into every single hotel lobby, they could also do that.


As I already said: lack of feasibility is just one of the issues, another is the constitutional problem of a government funded nationwide covert operation against a number of religions solely on the basis of their adherence to a religion.

This is the issue you keep side-stepping, but it's clearly a huge problem for your fiction.

Why don't you go and spend the time looking into this instead of arguing it with me? Go and see how this actually works. As I've already told you, there'd need to be a court order, and that would be unconstitutional.


Tree wrote:Now you be a good boy and quote mine as saying "Stores and restaurants are similar to mosques".


Stores are not similar to mosques in the eyes of the law. As I already told you - one is a commercial entity which pays commercial taxes, the other is a religious entity which is exempt from tax. This is in the eyes of the law - the very thing you are ignoring in while taking this flight of fancy.



Tree wrote:
Trumpism. Maybe they're all criminals, how should I know? Well, if you don't know, then what are you wittering about?


If you want to trust an organization with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by ex-employees of a Hamas front with sympathies to Hamas and an organization that hosts so-called "feminist" Muslims who mock FGM victims and is listed in a Muslim Brotherhood document as either a friendly organization to the MB if not a MB front, go for it.


Who said anything about 'trust'? Data speaks for itself. Your refusal to engage with data is typical - you believe your assertions supersede reality.

Similarly, you've moved from one claim about CAIR to a whole new one while pretending to be having a serious conversation.

In reality, CAIR is not seen as a criminal organization in the US.



Tree wrote:These organizations are little more than PR for totalitarianism.


Little more, nothing like... you know, words.



Tree wrote:CAIR has even been included on a list of terrorist groups by the UAE government due to its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.


Which is amusing because you no doubt also see the UAE as just as trustworthy because they too are Muslim.



Tree wrote: Now I don't particularly trust the UAE government,...


Bingo - the exception being when they say something you agree with!



Tree wrote:... but what exactly to they have to gain from lying about this?


What exactly do CAIR have to gain from lying about a survey they didn't even conduct themselves, only reported on, and which analyzes forms of Islamic belief in the US?

Also, if CAIR are the totalitarian, wanna-be violent fundamentalist terrorist supporters you claim they are, then it doesn't follow why they'd want to paint their alleged own corner as being the minority.

As I already pointed out: this is another one of your gaping logic chasms, and the only way you'll even acknowledge it is by simply making up bollocks out of thin air.



Tree wrote: An organization like CAIR, if it were actually "moderate", would not be detrimental to UAE interests.


Whether CAIR is moderate or not is irrelevant - your entire exercise in well-poisoning in irrelevant because they didn't actually conduct the survey themselves, which you'd know if you actually read the study rather than reject it on genetically fallacious grounds.




Tree wrote: The UAE economy relies heavily on tourism, an "American-Islamic relations" organization can only help not hinder that.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/17/us ... rates.html


You're once again ironically talking about the trustworthiness of a source while simultaneously citing Fox. All I can say is HAR HAR.



Tree wrote:
Whereas, in reality it's not their job to earn your trust because you are a nobody whose opinions are terminally irrelevant, and I very much doubt they even know you exist.


Then I don't need to listen to what they have to say.


Indeed. You can reject any and all facts if you like, but then no one is obliged to take what you say as being anything other than pure make-believe on your part. When you refuse to acknowledge evidence which contradicts your assertions by spinning a load of irrelevant codswallop, it shows how interested you are in the truth.




Tree wrote:
I did a quick search of your wording, and half the hits on the first page were from Stormfront.


Which literally means fuck all.


Which literally means exactly what I said it means.



Tree wrote:How about your elaborate on this conspiracy?


What conspiracy?

The only conspiracies cited herein are the numerous ones you pull out everytime you run out of room to engage in your typical evasions. Remember? Like the conspiracy the media is pulling off to gull everyone into a false sense of security for reasons you don't explain.

Like the conspiracy of a supposedly fundamentalist group manipulating data to contradict their own alleged beliefs.




Tree wrote:
In reality, this forum is far too sophisticated for such vacuous demagoguery. In reality, it just shows your argument is so poor that you need to sling poo in order to bring people down to your level.


So they say in the manifesto that they're motivated by religion (like they mentioned our drinking, freedom to women, secular politics and rejection of theocracy) and the part of the motivation that seems purely political has roots in the Quran and hadiths.


Your assertions don't take the place of evidence.



Tree wrote:You're not "sophisticated" one bit no matter how many times you insist that you're so. Sophisticated people don't need to constantly boast about how great they are.


No one, let alone me, has ever boasted about how great they are. As I've pointed out before: saying that YOU lack discursive competence is not me boasting.

Of course, you can prove me wrong if you like with citations, but given your track record, you will cite something that utterly fails to support your contention.

In reality, the actual conversation with respect to this topic has been you repeatedly derogating my intelligence, my sanity, and my humanity. And unlike you, I can actually cite dozens of instances of this.

Of course, the reason why you need to do this I've already discussed.



Tree wrote:You're in denial and desperate to scrub clean any links between terrorism and the Islamic doctrine.


Right, because... I'm a terrorist sympathizer?

Oh wait, no, I was a Muslim... that was it, wasn't it?

Or was it because I am a communist?

Hold on, is it because I am a stooge for the North Korean government?

You've called me so many contradictory things, it's hard to know which one you're appealing to.

Of course, it could just be that you're wrong and talking out the end of your digestive tract, and because you're unable to counter the public destruction of your wilful fantasy you need to engage in your typical well-poisoning.



Tree wrote:
So how does that work when they attack Muslims?


They attack Muslims they see as apostates because they're not observant enough or because they're Shi'ite which they view as heretical.


So they attack Muslims, ergo when you said...

Tree wrote:Do you not see that the real reason they fight us is because we're not Muslim?


It lacked any actual merit even in your own mind?

As usual, the actual reality is far more complicated than the truncated, simplistic snivelling you offer up with absolute certainty. And that's the reason I contest your assertions, because they're bollocks.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:24 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

australopithecus wrote:As I don’t have time to wade through posts longer than my uni dissertation, I’ll assume everyone is being nice and civil.

Friendly reminder that not being nice and civil is frowned upon and has consequences.



Goodness no. I'd be hard pressed to find anyone I've ever encountered who's less civil than Tree, and that includes YT comments sections!!! ;)

But it's absolutely fine by me. Every instance of him calling me names or declaring me insane or morally degenerate just makes his arguments weaker, not that they needed help in that respect.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:32 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Incidentally, Tree... did you want this to go away? Only, you're not usually so coy about responding to criticisms of your arguments.

It's almost as if you think you've gained a shred of authority in the conversation, and that this is a tad inconvenient because it looks utterly fruitcake, so you'll ignore it and pretend it never happened.

But I could be mistaken - perhaps you have another reason for not responding to the last 4 instances of it being cited.


viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15724&p=184199&hilit=+assassin#p184199

Tree wrote:And that's only possible because many Muslims are ignorant of what Islam says. For some, it only takes someone pointing out the teachings of Islam to make them theocratic or terrorist. For others who are already closeted radicals, it only takes an opportunity to show it, like having the confidence in the strength of numbers.

...

The idea that I can co-exist with an assassin roommate, I just have to hope he never opens the envelope with instructions to kill me or if he does he never goes through with it (because reasons?), is utterly laughable.




So do you want to elaborate on how Muslims are like assassins waiting/ready to murder us... or would you prefer it just dropped out of sight?

You realize that you can actually make retractions, right? If you don't want to own a stated position, you can just say 'That was a stupid thing for me to say' - in such an instance, not only will people then be able to remove this from the landscape of your arguments, but it will also net you a little legitimacy in terms of willingness to engage in honest discourse.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:40 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 877Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

There's a lot to catch up on between Sparhafoc and Tree (I think they've added 2 pages of comments since I last commented) but I would certainly like to reply to Tree's "response" to my last comment.

Tree wrote:You'll have to start posing questions that aren't loaded if you want more answers. There are lots of assumptions built into your questions that I don't believe are accurate.

There may be assumptions that I make that I am unaware are problematic but I have no issue if you point them out as I point out your inaccurate assumptions.

We'll see what you believe those are.

Tree wrote:It works based on whether or not the ideology in question actually advocates to do the things that you're doing.

Maybe there's a degree or subjectivity here, but you can't just make shit up completely out of thin air. Someone who rapes kittens and says "I did it because my belief in democracy tells me so" is not making a coherent point at all. There's nothing in the democratic doctrine saying you have to rape kittens.

So if that is how it works, I should point out then this isn't how you work.

I'll restate my example that inspired this point of exchange:
"Are you disagreeing with the perpretators of attacks on homosexuals and abortion clinic bombers? There are numerous that claim to be acting as dictated by their faith."

So you wrote that the perpretrators of the above type can claim a source of inspiration but that they could be lying and now we have the explanation about how to find that out: you have to look at the "ideology" and if the ideology is Christianity they're lying.
- If the ideology is Christianity they're lying.
- If the ideology is Islam they're telling the truth.

But you're simply restating what you've said before and you do not explain here why Christianity cannot inspire anyone to commit those types of acts:
- I have no talent as a mind-reader and I doubt you possess this superpower.
- And christian theology contains multiple passages with requirements that some people be put to death.

So if it is based entirely on theology rather than mind-reading powers, how can you justify that people claiming to be inspired by Christianity when they put homosexuals in jail for life (as a real world example), are actually lying but are not inspired by a theology like christianity?

Is it because the old testament requires homosexuals be put to death rather than jailed for life? (Which in fact, "put to death" was exactly the original objective of the Ugandan law).

Tree wrote:You got consult their stated doctrine, their theology that is in this case.

Extremist anything is a misleading choice of words because it's relative to the ideology. An extremist Christian should not be assumed to be interchangeable with an extremist Muslim, just like they're not interchangeable with extremist Jainists, extremist libertarians, extremist whatever.

Take an extremist Jainist for instance. They're not going to blow you up, they're preoccupation is going out of their way to ensure they don't step on bugs.

An extremist Christian will likely be preachy as fuck rather than a threat to your safety.

As explained above, I do while I don't believe you do.

And this is yet another example. Are you asking us to consider that christians that attack abortion providers or homosexuals to be "extreme-extremists christians" since "extremist christians" are just likely preachy? Or asking us to consider that they are lying? Because I do not see a third option other than they are telling the truth about what inspired them.

From your past comments, you appear to exclude christianity-inspired extremists because... they cannot possible be inspired by christianity according to you.

And you do that by asking us to consult their "stated doctrine and/or their theology" but when we do, we do find that the old testament is filled with violent passages calling for the deaths of various groups and individuals.

So please clarify "stated doctrine and/or their theology" since I do now want to make assumptions and have no clue what you actually mean:
Is "stated doctrine and/or their theology" the "holy" book of their religion?
Or is it the way most members of the religion practice today?
Or is it the official position of a denomination?
(and not as practice previously because a "moderate christian" from centuries ago isn't what we'd call "moderate" today).

Tree wrote:I don't respond to loaded questions.

That wasn't a loaded question. If you think it is, just don't declare it as one and show how it is.

Tree wrote:Christians are only responsible for the things their doctrine advocates to do. None of those things include fighting unbelievers or having a theocracy except for a few very specific and very fringe cults, while theocracy and violence are inherent to Islamic doctrines.

Is "stated doctrine and/or their theology" the "holy" book of their religion?
Or is it the way most members of the religion practice today?
Or is it the official position of a denomination?

This really does need clarification on your part because you appear to want to exclude Christians from a burden you want to impose on Muslims.

Tree wrote:That would be part of the Old Covenant aka the Mosaic Covenant.

If you knew anything about Catholic doctrine or for that matter most Protestant doctrines, you'd know it's not their view that the Mosaic Covenant applies fully in our time. The distinction is made between moral, judicial and ceremonial laws with only the moral component being mandatory.

Well since you mention assumptions, I need to point out you're assuming a lot here where it turns out you are wrong.

You are not only talking to someone raised Catholic (baptized and went through both first communion and confirmation) but that isn't even needed to know that a lot of Christian denominations rationalize the violent requirements of the old testament away because the "Mosaic Covenant does not apply today".

But that's the thing: "Mosaic Covenant" no longer applying is exactly that, a question of applicability, not a question of morality.

The passages requiring children to be stoned to death, homosexuals put to death, etc. are no longer judicial/legal requirements. However ask christians, althought a lot (if not most) denominations will say these old testament laws no longer apply today, a lot (if not most) will not condemn these laws as being immoral. Their theology is such that god is a perfectly moral being and such anything demanded by god is for a perfectly moral reason.

So is it that "the Mosaic covenant is no longer legally required" is the reason why Christians should not bear the responsability of extreme acts? If a Christian says he is morally inspired by the Old Testament, that it is the reason other Christians will bear no responsability for promoting and perpetuating the ideology that inspired him?

Because as a note, doing away with the "Old Covenant" did create some serious dispute and controversies ever since the beginning of christianity. There can be a serious case made that the old covenant was did away with not because of theological reasons but because of modern moral sensitivities (of the time) for which theological justifications were then made. It is like how modern Christianity now has reasons against slavery which were non-existent for the majority of its history (it only took them over a millenium).

Tree wrote:That I'll grant you, it's kinda sexist, but that alone is not an act of aggression.

If you want to argue that Christians bear some responsibility for the sexism done as a result of Christian attitudes about women, yeah, you can do that. I think there are bigger fish to fry like war and actual theocracy - where there's no choice to opt out. If someone's being a sexist, you can just choose to not talk to them.

Not an act of agression? Well wouldn't that depend on what you believe submissiveness of the woman permits the man to do?

Remember where I said above that I was raised Catholic? I'll give you an example from a formely predominantly Catholic culture (where I live): how long ago do you believe it was recognized that a husband could rape his wife?

You may find the wording strange so I'll clarify: it was only a little more than a couple decades ago that it was legally recognized that a husband could rape his wife. It wasn't that before the legal change it was impossible for a husband to assault his wife and force sex upon her when she did not want to have sex, it was simply that such an act couldn't legally be called rape.

Before the change, it was simply a culturally accepted norm that a wife, by marrying her husband, was consenting to all sexual intercourse demanded by the husband and as such that an husband could not rape his wife because the wife could never be non-consenting. A Catholic cultural accepted norm.

Of course, the change did have some pushback. Do you believe that those who argued that rape wasn't possible within a marriage used secular arguments or religious arguments?

And let me tell you that at the all the while rape was considered impossible within a marriage, those who believed that was the case were not considered "extremist christians".

Unless they were preachy as fuck.

Tree wrote:Both denominations reject slavery and even if they were okay with slavery, acquiring new slaves is basically impossible without violating other Christian religious tenets like not coveting or stealing.

Are we supposed to forget history here?
Because your comment would need to a couple of "Now" to be accurate as we all know that not only did a lot of denominations did not reject slavery, some denominations split over slavery with some still wishing to practice it. And those demominations? They justified their positions with scriptures.

And they were not considered "extremist christians" for their position on slavery. Perhaps only if they were preachy as fuck.

Tree wrote:It does in theory...

But not when you practice it.

Tree wrote:... but the hidden implication that Christianity advocates the same things Islam does is retarded and wrong. The implication that all extremists of all ideologies behave the same is also wrong. Since different religions have different tenets, taking those tenets to the "extreme" is not going to produce equal outcomes.
I'll say it once again, don't throw loaded questions around.

so these "hidden implications", how would you verify that they are actually there? How do you confirm that it isn't simply your bias that makes you see things that aren't actually implied?

Because I did not intend nor even wrote any such implications.

And yet again, it wasn't a loaded question.

Tree wrote:"Commanded", not inspired. I rarely care what stuff "inspires" you to do because inspiration is almost completely subjective.

With that in mind please tell me what crimes does Catholicism command?

Let's see a "Catholic extremist", let's see what he did, let's see if those actions are in line with the stuff Vatican says. You need to establish a plausible connection between being Catholic and doing crime.

They still perpetuate the same doctrine that tells those "extremists" what to do.

First, what is seen as a "command" also has a degree of subjectivity but second, the word you originally used was not "commands" but "instigates" which also is subjective.

A passage which spurs one person to commit some action will not necessarily spur everyone.

"Catholic extremist" and an action being in line with stuff the Vatican says? Or stuff the Vatican does? Or stuff it covers up? Catholic child abuse scandal anyone?

So we are back again to how you establish connections between certain theologies and doing crimes. "They can "claim" whatever they want. Doesn't make it true." and you can claim some ideologies spur some people to commit crime while denying others do, that doesn't make it true.

You really need to clarify how you come up with these connections because you clearly seem inclined to ignore what their holy book considers moral and only consider how most modern christians practice their faith when it comes to when it comes to Christianity and the burden or responsability of christians while oppositely inclined to ignore how most Muslims practice their faith to focus only on their holy book.

Tree wrote:Okay that's a fair point, but they haven't done that yet and the civilized world doesn't have hundreds of years to wait for Muslims to get their shit together if they ever do.

I have little to no doubt that you do not know a single Muslim. Much less know how the majority of them practice their faith.

And from what I've glimpsed in the other 2 pages of comments since I last left one, you certainly have some very problematic ideas when it comes how to discourage people from becoming Muslim (and only the Muslims).

At least you may have alleviated some of the doubts some people had in their opinion of you.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:38 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

MarsCydonia wrote:There's a lot to catch up on between Sparhafoc and Tree (I think they've added 2 pages of comments since I last commented) but I would certainly like to reply to Tree's "response" to my last comment.


I can summarize: yeah it is, no it's not. Doesn't matter which way round! ;)
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:29 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

I have little to no doubt that you do not know a single Muslim.


I agree. It's very easy to demonize people who you have no first-hand experience of - they remain a distant, obscure quantity.

When you live next door to Muslims, buy stuff at their shops, walk past them in the street on a daily basis, work with them, and even party with them on occasion... then the notion that they're all theologically deterministic automatons out to get 'us' non-Muslims isn't remotely tenable; it's just crackpottery. The only way this fearful belief can exist is through ignorance.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:45 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 877Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

So, catching up...

Tree wrote:I know we're not religious, but why do you need to lie and imply that an anti-modern medicine position is something widely promoted in Christian theology? It's not.

That is true. But that reflects to something I've repeatedly asked so again, correct me if I am wrong:
- Jihad against unbelievers is not a position widely promoted among practicing Muslims but all Muslims bear the responsability for it because they're perpetuating Islam.
- Jailing homosexuals is not a position widely promotod among practicing Christians so no Christians bear any responsability because they're perpetuating Christianity.

The reason you've provided so far is "because their stated doctrine and/or theology is different" but how would difference alleviate one from having to bear the responsability by "perpetuating the ideology"?

Correct me again if I am wrong but my understanding is that your explanation is that "Christianity's stated doctrine doesn't advocate X or Y" (which in the case of Christianity, is rather because it advocates homosexuals be put to death rather than jailed).

Hence why I asked you to clarify how we find what is their "stated doctrine".

What you consider to be "stated doctrine" appears to be "What most Christians practice today, not the bible" for Christianity while it is "The Quran, not what what most Muslims practice today" for Islam.

Tree wrote:NOT due to the actions of a violent minority, but due to their chosen doctrine. Someone who pledges their allegiance to a violent ideology is not someone I can trust.

Well that is you but it isn't me. I know people who are practicioners of violent ideologies such as Christianity and Islam but I still can trust some of them as I believe they have rationalized away the violent parts of their religion and actually believe that these violent parts were considered morally acceptable.

And the reason I know it isn't you is that asserted the Muslims above bear responsability for the violent ones. While also attempting to make a case that Christians do not.

(And before you go and misrepresent the above, I am not saying that they are equally violent but both have the potential for violence and subjugation of different groups).

Tree wrote:What exactly do you hope to accomplish by bringing up Christianity? It won't make me more lenient towards Islam, it won't change my view that Islam is a bad ideology that should have been discarded long ago and mass immigration from Muslim countries is bad for Europe, the best you can accomplish is that you'll make me despise Christianity. Why are you pursuing this pointless route with someone who isn't even religious to begin with?

Don't confuse a religion with it's practioners. You appear to be able to make that distinction with Christianity and Christians but why not make that distinction with Islam and Muslims?

I find both to bad ideologies. In both cases, I would prefer the practioners to realize the inherent issues their religion and I have my belief about which method is preferable to deconvert their members (and which is also permissible by my conscience).

While you seem to tolerate and even excuse/defend one of those ideology, or at the very least, its members. If you realize what leads you to be so lenient towards one, if you can realize how you are applying selective criterias depending on the religion, maybe you can treats both ideology fairly rather than with bias.

And that could very well lead to you despising Christianity as you seem eager to despise multiple groups.

So aren't you admitting here that if you come to the realization that you are applying different standards to these groups, the route you will go is "despise more" the group you are treating with leniency rather than go the route of "tolerate more" one of the groups you are currently despising?

Tree wrote:Catholicism is not scripture alone. It's scripture + interpretation by various theologians and approved by the Vatican basically. Your understanding of the Old Testament is not in line with theirs, in fact almost every Christian faction rejects your caricature interpretation of the mosaic covenant.

If at present these things contain instigation to harmful acts, then I would have no issue with criticizing Catholics for following Catholicism.

Are they calling for the subjugation of non-Catholics or non-Christians? No.

Are they calling for theocracy? No.

Are we going with going Catholics or Catholicism?

Because:
Are Christians calling for the subjugation of non-Christians? Not the majority but some do.
Are they Christians for theocracy? Not the majority but some do.

Change the word "Christians" above with "Muslims" and do the answers change? They don't.

And if take the issue of homosexuals as a different example:
Would Christians like to execute homosexuals?
Would Muslims like to execute homosexuals?

I don't know what percentages are for "Yes" in either of those groups. It certainly is an issue in Muslim-Majority countries but we also had the legislature of a Christian majority country which had that stated goal (encouraged on by American evangelists) but went with jailing them for life after international condemnation.

Both ideologies deserve blame there. Both but you don't seem to agree the way you've been willing to blame one ideology and deny there is an issue with the other.

Tree wrote:I've explained my position. Normative Christian theology doesn't say modern medicine is sinful or that you must follow the mosaic law given to ancient Israelis, while normative Islamic theology mandates Sharia law and conquest of non-Muslims to get them under Sharia law. Those laws were never meant exclusively for the 7th century and they were never abrogated.

So rather than "stated doctrine", we have "normative theology" here but the same question I asked before would apply:
Is "normative theology" the "holy" book of their religion?
Or is it the way most members of the religion practice today?
Or is it the official position of a denomination?

As I explained before, nowhere in Christian scripture was Mosaic law meant exclusively for a single time period. Both Jews and Christians have found a way to rationalize Mosaic law away.

A majority of Muslims rationalized away "the mandates of Sharia law and conquest of non-Muslims" but yet you're expecting us to grant the leniency to everyday Muslims that we do everyday Christians when it comes to Mosaic law.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:40 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

MarsCydonia wrote:I'll restate my example that inspired this point of exchange:
"Are you disagreeing with the perpretators of attacks on homosexuals and abortion clinic bombers? There are numerous that claim to be acting as dictated by their faith."


Yes, I disagree with them and I don't think they acting in accordance with normative Christian theology.

So you wrote that the perpretrators of the above type can claim a source of inspiration but that they could be lying


No, I meant simply that they're not acting in accordance with their doctrine.

Inspiration and instigation are different things as well. GTA V for example can theoretically "inspire" carjackings in disturbed individuals but it doesn't instigate carjackings.

and now we have the explanation about how to find that out: you have to look at the "ideology" and if the ideology is Christianity they're lying.
- If the ideology is Christianity they're lying.
- If the ideology is Islam they're telling the truth.


This isn't about lying or telling the truth, it's about whether or not they're acting in accordance with their doctrine.

Normative Islamic theology falls in line with conquering and subjugating/killing non-believers. Bombing abortion clinics or killing homosexuals doesn't fall in line with normative Christian theology.

But you're simply restating what you've said before and you do not explain here why Christianity cannot inspire anyone to commit those types of acts:
- I have no talent as a mind-reader and I doubt you possess this superpower.
- And christian theology contains multiple passages with requirements that some people be put to death.


Please make a distinction between inspiration and instigation. You seem aware of this to some degree but don't always apply it.

So if it is based entirely on theology rather than mind-reading powers, how can you justify that people claiming to be inspired by Christianity when they put homosexuals in jail for life (as a real world example), are actually lying but are not inspired by a theology like christianity?


You consult what theologians from the main denominations are saying.

Do they agree with this? Not even a little. You cannot start killing people just because they do something that's considered a sin, that's just murder.

Is it because the old testament requires homosexuals be put to death rather than jailed for life? (Which in fact, "put to death" was exactly the original objective of the Ugandan law).


You pretty much answered your own question later in the post and you're clearly aware the mosaic law isn't considered universal.

And this is yet another example. Are you asking us to consider that christians that attack abortion providers or homosexuals to be "extreme-extremists christians" since "extremist christians" are just likely preachy? Or asking us to consider that they are lying? Because I do not see a third option other than they are telling the truth about what inspired them.

From your past comments, you appear to exclude christianity-inspired extremists because... they cannot possible be inspired by christianity according to you.


See above.

And you do that by asking us to consult their "stated doctrine and/or their theology" but when we do, we do find that the old testament is filled with violent passages calling for the deaths of various groups and individuals.

So please clarify "stated doctrine and/or their theology" since I do now want to make assumptions and have no clue what you actually mean:
Is "stated doctrine and/or their theology" the "holy" book of their religion?
Or is it the way most members of the religion practice today?
Or is it the official position of a denomination?


It's the Bible + official position of the denomination as expressed by theologians.

Going by that, let's say a Catholic who murders homosexuals isn't acting in accordance with Catholicism. He would be correct that homosexuality is considered sinful but he doesn't have the authority to enact punishment for it such as taking life.

(and not as practice previously because a "moderate christian" from centuries ago isn't what we'd call "moderate" today).

This really does need clarification on your part because you appear to want to exclude Christians from a burden you want to impose on Muslims.


This was answered above.

You are not only talking to someone raised Catholic (baptized and went through both first communion and confirmation) but that isn't even needed to know that a lot of Christian denominations rationalize the violent requirements of the old testament away because the "Mosaic Covenant does not apply today".

But that's the thing: "Mosaic Covenant" no longer applying is exactly that, a question of applicability, not a question of morality.


It's applicability that I'm interested in as I'll explain below.

The passages requiring children to be stoned to death, homosexuals put to death, etc. are no longer judicial/legal requirements. However ask christians, althought a lot (if not most) denominations will say these old testament laws no longer apply today, a lot (if not most) will not condemn these laws as being immoral. Their theology is such that god is a perfectly moral being and such anything demanded by god is for a perfectly moral reason.


Well, that's true, but I don't care. How does it affect our current time if Christians support an unjust legal system in the past but only for the past and they don't think it applied anymore once Jesus came? Yes, it's a crazy belief, but does it make it impossible to have a secular republic? Not at all. They can believe all sorts of crazy things about the past as long as they don't want to apply it today.

So is it that "the Mosaic covenant is no longer legally required" is the reason why Christians should not bear the responsability of extreme acts? If a Christian says he is morally inspired by the Old Testament, that it is the reason other Christians will bear no responsability for promoting and perpetuating the ideology that inspired him?


Inspiration is not on the level of moral culpability as instigation.

Because as a note, doing away with the "Old Covenant" did create some serious dispute and controversies ever since the beginning of christianity. There can be a serious case made that the old covenant was did away with not because of theological reasons but because of modern moral sensitivities (of the time) for which theological justifications were then made. It is like how modern Christianity now has reasons against slavery which were non-existent for the majority of its history (it only took them over a millenium).


You'll have to explain how "modern" are we talking about?

13th century is definitely not modern and yet Thomas Aquinas was already making the distinction between the moral parts of the mosaic law and the legal/ceremonial parts and saying they're not obligatory.


Not an act of agression? Well wouldn't that depend on what you believe submissiveness of the woman permits the man to do?


Okay, I get your point, but it's much more clear in Islam for example where interactions between men and women are legally defined.

You will find things like the testimony of a woman having less value than the testimony of a man, in court.

Remember where I said above that I was raised Catholic? I'll give you an example from a formely predominantly Catholic culture (where I live): how long ago do you believe it was recognized that a husband could rape his wife?

You may find the wording strange so I'll clarify: it was only a little more than a couple decades ago that it was legally recognized that a husband could rape his wife. It wasn't that before the legal change it was impossible for a husband to assault his wife and force sex upon her when she did not want to have sex, it was simply that such an act couldn't legally be called rape.


But that was changed right?

They still perpetuate the same doctrine that tells those "extremists" what to do.

First, what is seen as a "command" also has a degree of subjectivity but second, the word you originally used was not "commands" but "instigates" which also is subjective.[/quote]

Maybe instigation is a better word.

Instigation isn't subjective, it's telling others to do X and meaning it in the context that it's said.

A passage which spurs one person to commit some action will not necessarily spur everyone.


The intended message matters.

I could say for example that blacks disproportionately commit crimes relative to being only 13% of the population based on the FBI's crime statistic.

A racist may jump to a few conclusions and read that as "kill the darkies", but that is definitely NOT what I said or would ever condone so I haven't instigated anything.

"Catholic extremist" and an action being in line with stuff the Vatican says? Or stuff the Vatican does? Or stuff it covers up? Catholic child abuse scandal anyone?


Catholic priest child abuse is not an issue of doctrine, it's a human failure issue.

So we are back again to how you establish connections between certain theologies and doing crimes. "They can "claim" whatever they want. Doesn't make it true." and you can claim some ideologies spur some people to commit crime while denying others do, that doesn't make it true.


Well is it a requirement of the faith or just something some followers decided to do because they misunderstood the authority they have to deal with sin?

You really need to clarify how you come up with these connections because you clearly seem inclined to ignore what their holy book considers moral and only consider how most modern christians practice their faith when it comes to when it comes to Christianity and the burden or responsability of christians while oppositely inclined to ignore how most Muslims practice their faith to focus only on their holy book.


I'm not ignoring how theologians define Islam. They shape Islam's future, not the laymen. If you wanted to know about Objectivism you'd consult the writings of Ayn Rand, not random people who say they're objectivist. If you wanted to know about classical liberalism the writings of someone like John Locke would help, consulting random people wouldn't help much.

The most common form is Sunni and it has 4 schools of jurisprudence which are "problematic" as you say.

And from what I've glimpsed in the other 2 pages of comments since I last left one, you certainly have some very problematic ideas when it comes how to discourage people from becoming Muslim (and only the Muslims).


Is it problematic to you if I discourage people from becoming fascists or communists?

At the end of the day what's the difference?

The only major thing that separates Islam from fascism or communism is that Islam claims the status of religion. This is sad. Were Islam just an ideology like the other 2, it would be the mockery in the wider society.

A majority of Muslims rationalized away "the mandates of Sharia law and conquest of non-Muslims" but yet you're expecting us to grant the leniency to everyday Muslims that we do everyday Christians when it comes to Mosaic law.


When has this occurred?

Are you talking about a majority of Muslims or a majority of Muslim scholars which are the ones shaping the ideology? I have little interest in how laymen behave and the Pew Research polls don't confirm a majority moderate Muslim pop either. Their time will come and go but the doctrine lives on if not changed and they can't change it, only the scholars can.

If this is true, then we should be able to find at least one "moderate" school of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam, 80 to 90% of Muslims are that. Shouldn't we?

We should also expect to see it in practice yet a Muslim country isn't even in the top 40 of the most free countries.
Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:12 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Again, unequal application of ad hoc standards, complimented by wilful ignorance in the form of gross simplification.

Asking a Muslim if they want sharia is like asking a Christian if they want the 10 commandments. Over and over again, we see Christian groups try and finagle the 10 commandments onto government property, so some people obviously are highly motivated by it. But it would be absurdly simplistic to say that all Christians want this, or even that the Christians who do want it actually mean they want to replace national laws with the 10 commandments.

This is exactly the same case with Muslims. In the UK, for example, 40% of Muslims surveyed wanted sharia law to be active in Muslim dominant communities, and only a tiny fraction - 1% - wanted to live under sharia law rather than British law.

https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-conten ... _FINAL.pdf

a majority of respondents, 53%, said that they wanted to ‘fully integrate with non-Muslims in all aspects of life’, while a further 37% spoke of wanting to integrate ‘on most things’ with separation in some areas, such as schooling and laws. Conversely, much fewer people took a more minimalistic view of wanting integration ‘on some things’, whilst leading ‘a separate Islamic life as far as possible’ (6%) and only 1% of respondents declared in favour of a ‘fully separate Islamic area in Britain, subject to Sharia Law and government’.


Even then, as I've already explained in this thread, sharia law is really detailed and complicated and most Muslims are not experts, or even know the details. They know the bits that affect their daily lives, they know the bits that are intrinsically tied to their religious beliefs such as the way they're supposed to worship, or things they're not supposed to do - riba (in Christian theological history this would be akin to 'usury'). So if you ask a Muslim if they want sharia law, are you asking them if they want criminals to be put to death, or are you asking them whether they want to settle disputes according to their religious beliefs?


The subject of Sharia law has caused much controversy in the past. Successive polls have shown what were felt to be surprisingly large numbers of British Muslims as favouring the implementation of such legal provisions. In some ways, our survey is no different. When asked whether they would support the introduction of Sharia Law – broadly defined, to include civil law on questions of financial disputes – some 43% said they supported this proposition, whereas 22% opposed it (23% neither supported nor opposed), while 12% said they did not know. 99 However, it should be stressed that the wording of the question here is significant: respondents were asked about Sharia in the broadest sense – and in that context, perhaps the most significant thing is that a majority of Muslims did not express a view in support and only 16% ‘strongly supported’ its introduction.


So even at the most simplistic level of analysis here, those British muslims who want sharia are a minority, and among the 43% who do want sharia, it's impossible to know what they mean by it not least because they don't envision it as superseding British law.

Of course, when the obsessive anti-Muslims run their spiels, they never allow distinction between different Muslim groups, schools of thought, and sects. They always homogenize Muslims. Ironically, however, they always employ an extremely strict sense of Islam common specifically in Salafist interpretation, but not common in other Muslim sects. Salafism is very uncommon in Europe or the USA, unsurprisingly as people from this school are ardently religious and do not often choose to live in nations where their own religious laws are not paramount. It may well be that Salafists more generally want the kind of things that anti-Muslims say all Muslims want, but Salafists are easily distinguishable from other Muslims because they don't share the same standards.

Regardless, among all this it's very clear that talking about all Muslims as a single entity and pretending that they all want theocratic subjugation is just plain nonsensical make-believe. It is fear running in place of reason.

It's also self-damaging. If you want to target a specific kind of Islamic thought that is dangerous to society, then you need to focus your attentions on it, not scattershot all Muslims because then no progress can ever be made. Not only does it breed fear and isolation in other Muslim groups, generate misdirected anger in an undereducated public, but it also provides cover for the most extreme groups because they are not being directly targeted and they can appeal to solidarity with other Muslims because all are being targeted for being Muslim.

It's ironic that Tree's appeals to fear of all these different groups, whether they be criminal Mexicans, property-stealing communists, or murderous Muslims, always entails policies that are apparently designed to maximize hostility and cause the very conflicts he's supposedly warning us of.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:08 am
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

You actually compared wanting Sharia law to wanting to place a statue of the 10 commandments on government land?

No further comment, your honor.

Even then, as I've already explained in this thread, sharia law is really detailed and complicated and most Muslims are not experts, or even know the details. They know the bits that affect their daily lives, they know the bits that are intrinsically tied to their religious beliefs such as the way they're supposed to worship, or things they're not supposed to do - riba (in Christian theological history this would be akin to 'usury'). So if you ask a Muslim if they want sharia law, are you asking them if they want criminals to be put to death, or are you asking them whether they want to settle disputes according to their religious beliefs?


Why should I excuse ignorance even if this is the case? This is precisely the level of gullibility from a public that leads to totalitarian movements and sometimes takeovers.

Would you be okay with people supporting National Socialism as long as they don't know what National Socialism is fully, just "bits and pieces"?

Islamic moderation based on ignorance doesn't work in the long term. All it takes is someone pointing out what the Sharia actually says and many of those "moderates" will turn on you and reject your country's values. If you want a long term solution you need to reform Islam and you need credible influential theologians for that.

All these moderate laymen you rely on will be gone in maximum of around 80 years (giving an estimation here based on the normal human lifespan). The theology will outlast them and will remain violent if not reformed.

It's also self-damaging. If you want to target a specific kind of Islamic thought that is dangerous to society, then you need to focus your attentions on it, not scattershot all Muslims because then no progress can ever be made.


Fine, but there is no strain of Sunni or Shi'ite Islam that is moderate.

Sunnis make up 80-90% of the population. The four branches of Sunni Islam each teach a form of Sharia that is utterly incompatible with our democracies. Please clarify what form of Islam that has a coherent theological form and is followed by large sections of the Muslim world is moderate to you?
Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:53 am
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

It's ironic that Tree's appeals to fear of all these different groups, whether they be criminal Mexicans,


How about you stop lying about my position?

I oppose illegal immigration and there's nothing "hostile" about telling foreigners to respect the borders of the US and migrate legally if they want to migrate at all.

The Mexican government would not appreciate 11 million Americans all jumping the border with no papers, would they?

property-stealing communists,


Communist ideology relies on stealing property.

always entails policies that are apparently designed to maximize hostility and cause the very conflicts he's supposedly warning us of.


And your solution to conflict is to just get along despite clear irreconcilable differences that are going to lead to conflict anyway on far worse terms.

You're only delaying the inevitable. At every point in history when communists and other totalitarians were not challenged sufficiently, they went on to cause irreversible damage.

Except "white supremacist neo-Nazis" then you're happy to maximize hostility with them, so you're not even consistent with your "let's all just get along" shtick. You selectively apply it.
Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:22 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:You actually compared wanting Sharia law to wanting to place a statue of the 10 commandments on government land?


No, I actually compared wanting Sharia law to wanting the 10 commandments enshrined as law.



Tree wrote:No further comment, your honor.


Probably for the best if your comments are going to be based on such poor reading comprehension.


Tree wrote:
Even then, as I've already explained in this thread, sharia law is really detailed and complicated and most Muslims are not experts, or even know the details. They know the bits that affect their daily lives, they know the bits that are intrinsically tied to their religious beliefs such as the way they're supposed to worship, or things they're not supposed to do - riba (in Christian theological history this would be akin to 'usury'). So if you ask a Muslim if they want sharia law, are you asking them if they want criminals to be put to death, or are you asking them whether they want to settle disputes according to their religious beliefs?


Why should I excuse ignorance even if this is the case?


It's not ignorance to not accept your preferred fundamentalist exegesis, Tree.


Tree wrote:This is precisely the level of gullibility from a public that leads to totalitarian movements and sometimes takeovers.


This is another foray into crackpot conspiracy claptrap.


Tree wrote:Would you be okay with people supporting National Socialism as long as they don't know what National Socialism is fully, just "bits and pieces"?


Um, yes of course I would, considering there's no way ever of knowing whether any individual knows absolutely everything about any given topic, nor is there any consequent assumption that they're obliged to agree.


Tree wrote:Islamic moderation based on ignorance doesn't work in the long term.


It's not ignorance to not accept your preferred fundamentalist exegesis, Tree.


Tree wrote: All it takes is someone pointing out what the Sharia actually says and many of those "moderates" will turn on you and reject your country's values.


Insert citation.


Tree wrote:If you want a long term solution you need to reform Islam and you need credible influential theologians for that.


Religious reform, if Christianity is anything to go by, is a movement TOWARDS fundamentalism, not away from it.


Tree wrote:All these moderate laymen you rely on will be gone in maximum of around 80 years (giving an estimation here based on the normal human lifespan). The theology will outlast them and will remain violent if not reformed.


Or it will change in terms of how it is perceived, exactly as Christianity has, which is why you don't have Christians burning witches, forcing pagans to convert by the sword, or crusading to reclaim the 'holy land' these days. Same scripture, but no longer typically interpreted as justification for violence.

You wont address this, of course, but it really cuts to the very core of your argument and exposes one of the many problems your spiel has.


Tree wrote:
It's also self-damaging. If you want to target a specific kind of Islamic thought that is dangerous to society, then you need to focus your attentions on it, not scattershot all Muslims because then no progress can ever be made.


Fine, but there is no strain of Sunni or Shi'ite Islam that is moderate.


Whereas in reality, you are of course wrong. I am surrounded by moderate Sunni Muslims on a daily basis.


Tree wrote:Sunnis make up 80-90% of the population. The four branches of Sunni Islam each teach a form of Sharia that is utterly incompatible with our democracies. Please clarify what form of Islam that has a coherent theological form and is followed by large sections of the Muslim world is moderate to you?


Well, for example, you can read the source above about British Muslims.

Note that I don't call them 'moderates', I just call them Muslims.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:01 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 15 of 16
 [ 304 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests