|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evil Muslim conspiracy... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
I have at least some background knowledge about it. It would be rooted in the historical religious tradition that links the Jewish people with the land of Israel. It gained secular support after the Holocaust, because Jews thought they needed a land and a government that they could control, instead of being subject to the governments where the historical diaspora sent them. You must know more about this than I do, and I would be happy to be educated further on it. I can fact check your claims in the process of that. That is how I go through my own education.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
I had no idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
Go on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
Yes, I am still with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
Rahvin:
1) Very many Muslims are not violent.2) Very many non-Muslims are violent. 3) Therefore, Islam does not cause Muslims to be violent. Do you think that is a valid argument? If not, would you like to restate the argument?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
"For instance, do you think that Muslims hate non-Muslims because the Koran tells them to, or do you think that distinct groups of people (whether the distinction is race, nation, religion, or favorite football team) tend towards conflict, and the specific teaching of any religion or the words of political leaders tend to just be a convenient excuse?"
I have not subscribed to the fallacy that there is one and only one motivational cause for acts of violence among anyone. People do tend toward conflict, and we see it in the playgrounds, where children who are different get isolated and abused. To say, then, that all it takes is differences among people to fuel the violent hatred we see among many Muslims is, I think, delusional. I will fully restate my argument so you know my vantage. I came out of the Christian religion, and I see very many of the same forces within Islam. Islam became the 2nd-most powerful religion in the world, not by accident. It borrowed the most powerful elements of control and persuasion heavily from Christianity, including: 1) Promise of eternal reward in heaven. Everyone wants to live a long time, they will do whatever they can to prolong their lives, and they lust after pleasure. Islam promises their adherents an eternity of such reward.2) Threat of eternal punishment in hell. Everyone wants to avoid pain, and they will do whatever they can do to keep avoiding such pain. Moreover, they will go to extremes to keep the people they love out of such pain. Islam threatens everyone who does not adhere to the religion with maximum pain in hell. 3) Ultimate purpose to living. Islam promises adherents that their lives have transcendent meaning and purpose, well above and beyond the relative trivialities of day-to-day living. 4) Authoritarianism. Islam has a single perfect almighty loving God who is always right and serves as the perfect leader, the best father figure you can possibly imagine. To follow God is the definition of right, and to disobey God is the definition of wrong. 5) Scripturalism. The authority of God is found in scriptures, and the authority of these scriptures rests in the facts that they are beautifully written, have an air of authoritarian truth and are 1500 years old. 6) Social persuasion. Islam uses family, friends, and social authority figures to help persuade everyone that there is no doubt that Islam is the true path. Anyone who disbelieves is cut off from society. The combination of these forces means that Islam is easily at the top of the most powerful ideologies in existence. Should it be unexpected, then, that the passages in the Kuran that seem capable of being either twisted or directly interpreted for the cause of violence contributes strongly to that end? Is it more plausible that the people who are violent in the name of Islam are really only putting up their religion as a front, that their religion really is not so persuasive after all, that the seemingly violent Kuranic scriptures really contribute nothing? Is Islam really that ineffective at persuasion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined:
|
In Ireland, the penalty for blasphemy is a fine of 25,000 euros or less. Many Irish atheists have publicly blasphemed after the law was passed, and none have been prosecuted. In Pakistan, the penalties for blasphemy include a fine, imprisonment and death. 647 people have been charged, some with death. It is not just a tyrannical government. Convicts are killed by prison guards. In 1997, a judge in Pakistan was killed by assassins after acquitting two people charged with blasphemy. Wikipedia contains a long list of blasphemy cases in Pakistan, and they are all macabre.
Blasphemy in Pakistan - Wikipedia
quote:Your objections are sound. I have crawled Google and Google Scholar looking for evidence of my position, with mixed results. One study, "Islam and Large-Scale Political Violence: Is There a Connection?" claims in the abstract that no correlation exists between Muslims and large-scale intrastate violence. I am not so surprised by that conclusion. All the news I have sifted through that relate to violence in the name of Islam have to do mostly with the small-scale stuff--various isolated murders, assassinations, terrorist attacks, beatings, rapes and that sort of thing. The "large-scale intrastate violence" I would take to be more about civil wars, revolutions, riots and genocides. This would be the only such study on the large-scale violence, but studies on violence and Islam in general are likewise scarce. Whenever I do find a study on small-scale violence and Islam, there is a correlation. A study in Germany drew a correlation between Islamic religiosity among teenage boys and the willingness to use violence.
"Pfeiffer said that even when other social factors were taken into account, there remained a significant correlation between religiosity and readiness to use violence." I wish I knew which "social factors" those are, but, presumably, they include wealth, nationality or anything else relevant. That would be essential to drawing a causal link between Islam and the tendency for violence. Such a link seems to be the conclusion of the study, anyway.
"The increased likelihood to use violence was restricted to Muslim boys Pfeiffer said — Muslim girls were just as likely to be violent as non-Muslim girls. This led him to conclude that there was not a direct link between Islamic belief and violence — but an indirect one. He pointed to Christian teachings which justified domestic violence and male dominance of society for a long time." The indirect link would presumably be the passages in the Koran that justify domestic violence. Those have not been a topic of this discussion, but it is a big issue. There was another study on domestic violence in Arab countries with an especially interesting abstract.
In Arab and Islamic countries, domestic violence is not yet considered a major concern despite its increasing frequency and serious consequences. Surveys in Egypt, Palestine, Israel and Tunisia show that at least one out of three women is beaten by her husband. The indifference to this type of violence stems from attitudes that domestic violence is a private matter and, usually, a justifiable response to misbehaviour on the part of the wife. Selective excerpts from the Koran are used to prove that men who beat their wives are following God's commandments. These religious justifications, plus the importance of preserving the honour of the family, lead abusers, victims, police and health care professionals to join in a conspiracy of silence rather than disclosing these offences. However, a fair reading of the Koran shows that wife abuse, like genital mutilation and "honour killings" are a result of culture rather than religion. That was published in the Archives of Women's Mental Health, authored by S. Douki, F. Nacef, A. Belhadj, A. Bouasker and R. Ghachem--Arab names. They concluded that the Koranic passages that supposedly justify domestic violence are not actually legit. To conclude that domestic violence against women follows from Islam (and at the same time condemn domestic violence) would constitute blasphemy. At least one in three women are beaten by their husbands in Egypt, Palestine, Israel and Tunisia, which is roughly 8% larger than the established one in four ratio that exists in the United States. The one if four ratio constitutes the women who were abused in their entire lifetimes, and there is no widespread conspiracy of silence in the United States, however. Maybe this is not enough evidence. When direct evidence is lacking, there are still ways to find the most reasonable conclusion. Let me explain to you how I make decisions of belief. Any set of evidence can have many explanations, but only one explanation should be accepted when it excels over the competing explanations. I believe the best explanation, and the best explanation is chosen by what explanation has roughly the most explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, consistency and least ad hoc. It is called, "Argument to the Best Explanation," a methodology developed within New Testament scholarship, but it really can be applied to anything. The methodologies of science that are typically put on the table, in my opinion, tend to be more limited, incomplete, or dogmatic. This is the methodology that we most often use to make decisions of belief, even if we don't know it. You can find the definitions of each of these items here at Wikipedia: Historical method - Wikipedia I learned a lot belonging to the Christian religion. I learned almost as much about it being an activist against it from the outside. The people sincerely believe it. Moreover, many people are willing to do weird things for it. They are willing to go to church every Sunday, listen to boring sermons, make prayers a daily ritual, evangelize, make themselves look like idiots to the world, and decide their careers, families and friends based on it. That is what they do because they sincerely believe that is what God wants. We are already willing to believe that people are willing to do good things motivated by religion. Are we not? We are already willing to believe that people are willing to make substantial changes to their lives motivated by religion. Are we not? We are already willing to believe that Islam is a religion equally as powerful as Christianity, if not more so. In Islam, the people are motivated to pray toward Mecca five times every day. That is a big devotion of one's time. In my grad school, there is only one Muslim, sent from a foreign navy for one year, with nobody else to accompany him. He set his laptop to make the sound of someone praying in Arabic whenever it is time for him to pray. He abstains from pork and alcohol, though there was nobody who would hold it against him if he were to accept a drink. He represents very many people who sincerely believe their religion and are willing to set their behaviors accordingly. We believe those things because such beliefs have explanatory power, explanatory scope and plausibility. So, why is it more plausible that the bad things people do with the seeming backing of their religion are motivated by something else? Once again I ask: is religion really so weak?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
quote:That was the politically correct and diplomatic thing for Bush to say, and he has not gotten nearly enough credit for it, though it did help to control the criticism that the wars were anti-Islamic in nature. That isn't quite the same as actually believing it. It really is something that a Muslim or a liberal would have tend to believe. Islam is many things, but it is not an especially peaceful religion. Edited by ApostateAbe, : include quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
The proposal of those two fallacies does not quite fit, and there is no need to fit everything you disagree with to a fallacy. Sometimes, it is just an inaccurate statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
quote:For sure. I would very much hold it against him if he actually told the truth. Anything the POTUS says can cost lives. quote:Absolutely. If all Muslims believed that Islam is a religion of peace and they acted accordingly, then Islam would be a religion of peace. The majority really do believe that Islam is a religion of peace, and they are against violence. The main problem seems to be that all of them encourage absolute belief in the Koran, which is filled with the encouragement of violence and hatred. Muslims live in the modern time, and they try to believe holy scriptures from a medieval time period. This means that anyone who could be inclined to violence will find all the justification and moral support they need in the Koran. Edited by ApostateAbe, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
Dr Adequate, perhaps, then, Islam is not a religion of peace, but more of a religion of retribution and self-defense. Some have criticized Christianity for its commands to "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies." Certainly, those are not the best passages to turn to in times of military threats. But, when you have passages like these:
[2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers. Then tell me which religion is the religion of peace. Those passages mean that you get justification for the sort of endless exchanges of revenge you see in Palestine, where Israel is seen by Muslims as the eternal oppressor, and no peace can ever be attained.
[60:9]Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers. [Deuteronomy 20:10-17] When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them. See? Ancient Judaism was a religion of peace! They much preferred to peaceably enslave non-Jews. Lucky for us, modern Christians do not believe that such passages are applicable to modern times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
ringo writes:
I have not ignored this post. I was inspired to write a new thread, and I called it "The evolution of hell: how rhetoric changes religion." It is a full explanation of how criticism affects the evolution of religions.
ApostateAbe writes:
Blaming the religion itself instead of the people who are to blame will only alienate the good ones like the ones in the OP and enflame the bad ones.
When the religion of Islam itself is blamed for the violent actions of the adherents, when the danger of the religious scriptures that they believe are made clear, then it will be weakened among the generation who inherits the religion. Apostate Abe writes:
The changes in Christianity have more to do with political changes - e.g. democracy - than with criticism from inside or outside. The relatively peaceful form of Christianity we have today emerged from centuries of criticism from the inside and the outside.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024