How 'Rational Atheists' spread anti Islam pro US military propaganda

  On 4/13/2013 at 3:34 AM, luke viia said:

"Believing something without evidence" really doesn't mean "delusion." Please be careful with your words; it's statements like that that will discredit you in any circle that is actually tolerant of religion but wants to stop the bad parts that can arise with it. Unless you're out to make enemies, speaking with such venom about things you are not involved in will only hurt your case. That's part of why I want to go get coffee with you and pull a few muslims into the conversation. It would force you to word your "rational discourse" in a way that is not so full of fire, as you would actually need to convince the people you say you care so much about that they would be better off without their religion. It's a tall order, but short of being able to convince them, you are essentially proposing that we (the west) "take" religious faith from a group of 1 billion + people, and that just won't work. Belief cannot be taken from someone, and the harder you would try to tell them they're wrong, the more they will retreat to their own beliefs and consider yours toxic.

Believing something immense (considering it promotes eternal damnation) like the Qu'ran is the perfect word of god, is a delusion. I'm not speaking to muslims right now, I'm generally speaking to atheists/agnostics. So it'd be nice (and consistent) if you guys would stop representing them on your behalf, and start representing yourself.

You suggest I should attempt to convince Muslims randomly on the street, as it will help me learn something about morals or tolerance (lol), while also then admitting religious fanatics (or even moderates) won't budge on their deluded beliefs. And that's ok? I should submit myself to their bullshit, but it's fine if they want to keep on ignoring rational arguments?

You see, I fully understand how incapable I would be (or anyone) at directly trying to convince them their beliefs are wrong. Which is why I think one of the only realistic ways of preventing the Dark Ages 2.0 is with numbers (as it seems this is the one "valid" argument they have left). But that's not gonna happen if Liberals keep pretending to be neutral on the matter (talk about incoherent).

  Quote

Back to "faith" - you believe all sorts of things without evidence. We all do. We have to, because there isn't evidence for every decision we need to make. You have faith in certain human beings (Pat Condell, apparently) despite not knowing him or being able to collect evidence of his truthfulness directly from him, just as an example. You are relying on faith that he is truthful. I've watched a few of those videos; dude has an agenda and is clearly biased. I do not put faith in him.

 

Yeah I have faith in things. This is true. But I have faith without the need to then support gigantic institutions that oppress and manipulate all sorts of people. Pat Condell may be biased against Religious belief, but on this front, his bias is correct. Unless you can somehow justify millions of Muslim women being treated as less than equal. Care to explain how my faith in Pat Condell is not worth your time of day, but the Quran is?

Let's not forget that every Pat Condell youtube has links in the description to news articles that support his claims. But I guess this doesn't matter to most of you anymore, because if something is against your set of beliefs, it most certainly must be biased! Not to mention most of the arguments are being ignored. GoDel has pointed this out, is this just a delusion we've invented?

  Quote

Have you read and attempted to understand the Quran with an open mind? If not, I urge you to really think about your claim that you are fighting intolerance. There are over 1,400 verses in the Quran that demand Muslims to take care of the planet and protect the environment; is that morally repulsive? Or are you just honing in on the out-of-context verses you find on websites, and extrapolating "moral repugnance" to the rest of the book? The Bible demanded that the Jews decapitated the women and infants of a warring tribe (it's in Second Kings); if we focused on that, we'd see the Jewish people as incredibly violent savages, and Christians ready to follow in those footsteps. But the rest of the Old Testament has many other messages, and the most violent parts are considered by many religious people to be stories passed on by a warring tribal band, not the Word of God, and Christ himself had much to say against just such actions. Christians insist they follow Christ, not the book of Kings. Religious texts themselves are difficult to read; they are layered with meaning and very little of it is typically literal. Literalists or Fundamentalists might tell you otherwise, but to lump an entire religious system into one interpretation is dangerous, ignorant, and downright intolerant.

 

I don't need to read the Qu'ran to know its morally repulsive.

How about if you are gonna defend these Religious institutions, you go read the 1,400 pages and get back to me on how you've become a Muslim. Enlighten me with the true path to God and happiness. Though I suspect you've never looked at it either because you've concluded the same thing (it's bullshit).

And yes, the Christians and the Jews used to do a lot of barbaric shit because of their books, but don't anymore... thank god for that.

  On 4/13/2013 at 4:41 AM, compson said:

And yes, the Christians and the Jews used to do a lot of barbaric shit because of their books, but don't anymore... thank god for that.

 

ladies and gentlemen, this is what a troll looks like.

  On 4/13/2013 at 4:44 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 4:41 AM, compson said:

And yes, the Christians and the Jews used to do a lot of barbaric shit because of their books, but don't anymore... thank god for that.

 

 

 

 

ladies and gentlemen, this is what a troll looks like.

 

By comparison. But I will concede that point. Christianity and Judaism are still barbaric.

Don't know why that weakens my argument against Islam. Could someone explain this?

  On 4/13/2013 at 4:53 AM, compson said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 4:44 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 4:41 AM, compson said:

And yes, the Christians and the Jews used to do a lot of barbaric shit because of their books, but don't anymore... thank god for that.

 

 

 

 

ladies and gentlemen, this is what a troll looks like.

 

 

By comparison. But I will concede that point. Christianity and Judaism are still barbaric.

 

Don't know why that weakens my argument against Islam. Could someone explain this?

 

your argument is that Islam does it more, as if that could possibly be quantifiable through an objective lens of inquiry.

  On 4/13/2013 at 3:29 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 3:27 AM, compson said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 3:21 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 3:10 AM, compson said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 2:21 AM, Deer said:

lol compson you keep posting videos from Pat Condell. You seem to have no opinions of your own, all you do is post bullshit from your favorite militant atheist.

 

I believe you think we are dumb enough to believe you're coherent.

I personally find the Koran to be intolerant and morally repulsive. And it doesn't make me a bigot or a racist for saying that. It's the truth.

 

 

 

 

Im in complete agreement with that. \The rest of your argument is complete and utter shit.

 

No one is "refuting" your arguments because you never had one on a sturdy logical premise in the first place. Everything keeps shifting back to Islam= Other, and anyone that disagrees with that is not only a pinko-leftie, but a supporter of Islamofascism (i still have yet to see you or anyone else appropriately define this term within constructs of ideological reality btw).

 

I mean, continue on your righteous crusade to liberate WATMM from the shackles of liberal arts educations; it's entertaining at this point. But no amount of copy-paste wiki links/right-wing blog sites are going to justify this nonsense.

 

 

Are you kidding me?

 

Islamofascism = Sharia Law

 

 

ok, so what is regular, unadulterated fascism?

 

Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that promotes the mass mobilization of the national community

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

So by extension Islamofascism is unique to fascism because it combines religion and nationalism. Which is akin to the kind of environment the wonderful leaders of North Korea provide to their people. Except a big difference is that if you kill infidels through martyrdom you earn yourself a one way ticket to paradise! How wonderful.

And best of all, because of the OIC ie Organisation of Islamic Cooperation have the largest voting block in the UN, we have begun to see how Islam is slowly tearing into our international human right laws and eroding on peoples right of freedom of speech and religion.

  Quote

In addition, "Religious Insult" is a criminal offense in Andorra, Cyprus, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, Norway, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland.

 

Britain, for example, abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales in 2008. But in 2006 the British government enacted the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which created a new crime of intentionally stirring up religious hatred against people on religious grounds. The new law has led to zealousness bordering on the irrational.

 

In Nottingham, for example, the Greenwood Primary School cancelled a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha.

 

In Scotland, the Tayside Police Department apologized for featuring a German shepherd puppy as part of a campaign to publicize its new non-emergency telephone number. As Islamic legal tradition holds that dogs are impure, the postcards used in the campaign were potentially offensive to the city's 3,000-strong Muslim community;

 

In Glasgow, a Christian radio talk show host was fired after a debate between a Muslim and a Christian on whether Jesus is "the way, the truth and the life." In Birmingham, two Christians were told by police "you cannot preach here, this is a Muslim area."

 

In Cheshire, two students at the Alsager High School were punished by their teacher for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class. Also in Cheshire, a 14-year-old Roman Catholic girl who attends Ellesmere Port Catholic High School was branded a truant by teachers for refusing to dress like a Muslim and visit a mosque.

 

In Liverpool, a Christian couple was forced to sell their hotel after a female Muslim guest accused the pair of insulting her during a debate about Islam.

 

In recent months, however, Muslims have been lobbying to reinstate blasphemy laws in Britain. A petition reportedly sent to British Prime Minister David Cameron reads: "It is axiomatic that Great Britain is a key player in global harmony. British parliamentarians have made outstanding progress in eradicating racism, anti-Semitism, discrimination, inequalities and other factors causing hurt to all citizens. The trust and hope of millions of British Muslims is placed in yourselves as representatives and Members of Parliament to call for changes in the law to protect the honor of Faith Symbols of Islam and other faiths."

 

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3474/blasphemy-laws-europe

I mean shit, most of you guys keep talking about how I am generalizing Muslims, but where the heck are the Muslims on Watmm? 1.6 Billion Muslims and absolutely none. Could it be because Islam fanaticism teaches music, besides singing (WATMMers least favorite musical instrument) as against Sharia Law?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKFEZKuuW3M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8Kz78IaGE4

Thought so.

  On 4/13/2013 at 4:55 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 4:53 AM, compson said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 4:44 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 4:41 AM, compson said:

And yes, the Christians and the Jews used to do a lot of barbaric shit because of their books, but don't anymore... thank god for that.

 

 

 

 

ladies and gentlemen, this is what a troll looks like.

 

 

By comparison. But I will concede that point. Christianity and Judaism are still barbaric.

 

Don't know why that weakens my argument against Islam. Could someone explain this?

 

your argument is that Islam does it more, as if that could possibly be quantifiable through an objective lens of inquiry.

 

This to me sounds an awful lot like the argument I hear from fanatical religious types. "You can't disprove God, so therefore I believe in God."

When in reality there is a lot more evidence to support the notion that Islam is the worst religion of present day. But of course I can't prove this to you when wikipedia, pat condell, and any other source that showcases the stark differences between practices and morals, is simply denied as legitimate (just because).

compson, I am tempted to convert to Islam and help take over the world just to get you to shut the fuck up.

  On 4/13/2013 at 4:44 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 4:41 AM, compson said:

And yes, the Christians and the Jews used to do a lot of barbaric shit because of their books, but don't anymore... thank god for that.

 

 

 

 

ladies and gentlemen, this is what a troll looks like.

 

It wasn't because of their books, it made it into the book. The violence was because they were a warring tribe - it was a political situation and, as usually happens, religion was used as a tool to rally people. And yeah, "thank god" they "got over" it, lol.

  Quote

 

Believing something immense (considering it promotes eternal damnation) like the Qu'ran is the perfect word of god, is a delusion. I'm not speaking to muslims right now, I'm generally speaking to atheists/agnostics. So it'd be nice (and consistent) if you guys would stop representing them on your behalf, and start representing yourself.

1. I am one person, not "you guys."

2. I am representing myself, and all I have asked you to do is to tone down the hateful language, because it will get you nowhere. Please note that you have not changed a single person's mind in this thread. That is direct evidence that your conversational tactics are failing to promote rational discourse.

  Quote

 

You suggest I should attempt to convince Muslims randomly on the street, as it will help me learn something about morals or tolerance (lol), while also then admitting religious fanatics (or even moderates) won't budge on their deluded beliefs. And that's ok? I should submit myself to their bullshit, but it's fine if they want to keep on ignoring rational arguments?

3. Yes, you need to subject yourself to their opinions if you want to promote rational public discourse. That's your language, not mine, and I'm trying to help you realize that goal.

4. I did not suggest they won't budge. The point of finding random people to discuss this with is that you will be engaged intellectually to actually refute their arguments, and will have to know when to call it quits and walk away. Rational public discourse. I realize talking to strangers makes you uncomfortable - at least, apparently it does IRL. Here you seem to have no problem asserting political agendas for the entire world to a bunch of people you've never met (excluding me!).

  Quote

 

You see, I fully understand how incapable I would be (or anyone) at directly trying to convince them their beliefs are wrong. Which is why I think one of the only realistic ways of preventing the Dark Ages 2.0 is with numbers (as it seems this is the one "valid" argument they have left). But that's not gonna happen if Liberals keep pretending to be neutral on the matter (talk about incoherent).

5. Please stop referring to liberals; you aren't even a damn conservative. If you do identify that way, have fun in the world of partisan politics - I'm fairly sure you'll find it full of fucking dingbats.

6. You're going to stop the "Dark Ages 2.0" with numbers? That's interesting, considering we took Algebra from the freakin' Muslims when they had a different geopolitical arena to play in, and we were still using Roman numerals to fuck about for hundreds of years, barely able to perform tricky arithmetic.

  Quote

 

Yeah I have faith in things. This is true. But I have faith without the need to then support gigantic institutions that oppress and manipulate all sorts of people. Pat Condell may be biased against Religious belief, but on this front, his bias is correct. Unless you can somehow justify millions of Muslim women being treated as less than equal. Care to explain how my faith in Pat Condell is not worth your time of day, but the Quran is?

No, I won't explain that, because I never said your faith in Condell wasn't "worth my time of day, but the Qur'an is!" Please stick to the points actually brought to you. For "community coherence" and all that.

  Quote

 

Let's not forget that every Pat Condell youtube has links in the description to news articles that support his claims. But I guess this doesn't matter to most of you anymore, because if something is against your set of beliefs, it most certainly must be biased! Not to mention most of the arguments are being ignored. GoDel has pointed this out, is this just a delusion we've invented?

Again you put ideas and words into my posts that aren't there. Is that part of your definition of "rational discourse"? :P

The arguments are "being ignored" because they're just fucking youtube videos and they aren't about the Greenwald article; you should be proud that people have entertained your tangents this long, despite the harm it must be doing to "community coherence."

  Quote

 

I don't need to read the Qu'ran to know its morally repulsive.

Yes, you do. Claiming to "know" something without understanding or studying it is ignorance. If I were half as involved in trying to affect the public perception of Islam as you are, yes, I would have read the Qur'an by now. Instead I read the Baghavad Gita and the Gracians Manual, because those are particular religious belief systems that interest me, and I'd like to be able to say I know something about them.

  Quote

How about if you are gonna defend these Religious institutions, you go read the 1,400 pages and get back to me on how you've become a Muslim. Enlighten me with the true path to God and happiness. Though I suspect you've never looked at it either because you've concluded the same thing (it's bullshit).

My attempt to tell you to calm down the painfully confrontational language you've been using ITT is not an outright defense of religious institutions; I'm trying to help you show some tolerance toward the schools of thought you speak about so often. It appears you are not interested. And no, I've never concluded the Qur'an is bullshit.

And for the record, I'm not a fan of any religious dogma, though you've repeatedly insinuated that I'm an "islamofascist apologist" for whatever fucking reason. Rational discourse indeed.

Anyway, I'm out, dude. It's 8pm on Friday and I have weed to smoke. Here I was trying to get you to be tolerant, and how quick I was to get testy with you after being misunderstood. It's interesting how quickly goodwill can be eroded by slight confrontation. That's exactly the point I wanted to make to you in my last post, but whatever. It was lost. I'd like to stop posting now.

I'm just going to quickly say that approaching random people on the streets is completely different than an individual selecting to read forum topics from people that have common interests.

Also, this is an absurd conversation now. I asked you to represent your views on the topic at hand. Not just your views about my tone.

If you got a leg to stand on, there would be actual arguments presented to prove your thesis that all religions in the present day pose an equal threat to civilized society. But you know you can't prove this, so that's why we just see the dancing.

  On 4/13/2013 at 5:21 AM, compson said:

. But you know you can't prove this, so that's why we just see the dancing.

and we have yet to hear your proof for yours.

edit; compson added too much to his post, I don't have time for this now I'm stoned. Needless to say I don't have a "thesis" that all religions are equally harmful. Compson must have a whole strawman army by now.

Also you'd think that poll justifying stoning women who commit adultery would be enough for your community cohesive brains to admit that stoning people is not good for community cohesion.

While lecturing me on not being offensive towards people who are doing vile shit like that.

Islamofascism really must be Satan in disguise (at least to most of you).

what is your proof that Islam is the most violent religion (in the present)?

Sharia Law in of itself proves this. Where is the Christian Fascist State?

Egypt just had a revolution, they voted in a guy who wants Sharia Law. The people want Sharia Law. Show me one other religion with these fascist ideals?

are you on medication compson?

  On 4/13/2013 at 5:35 AM, compson said:

Are you mental? Sharia Law in of itself proves this. Where the fuck is the Christian Fascist State?

 

Egypt just had a revolution, they voted in a guy who wants Sharia Law. The people want Sharia Law. Show me one other religion with these fascist ideals?

Sharia Law is not proof. Sharia Law is not the totality of all Islamic cultures or sects. Show me proof that Islam is the most violent religion.

please stop using the word "fascist" to describe things. you don't seem to know what it means and it's bothering me to read it, over and over again, in the context of islam.

  On 4/13/2013 at 3:24 AM, zaphod said:

i feel bad for awepittance because the original article has nothing to do with compson's tirade. although, in a way, compson is demonstrating the original piece's point. can we get a parallel discussion going about greenwald's piece? maybe a compson/islamowhatever subforum?

in that regard you're right, he is demonstrating some of the examples made in the piece except for the fact that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins aren't spouting generic manufactured right-wing talking points. Which in a way was the point of the article, that what is normally considered a 'liberal' talking point, wrapped in an atheism argument in fact becomes pro US neoconservative agenda. Compson pretty much as soon as he entered the thread is a hybrid between Christopher Hitchens and Sean Hannity

i feel like he's an AI built around some kind of neocon/right wing language algorithm.

i think this quote from the greenwald article has some relevance to compson:

  Quote

 

it is a relentless effort to depict Islam as the supreme threat. Based on that view, Harris, while depicting the Iraq war as a humanitarian endeavor, has proclaimed that "we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam." He has also decreed that "this is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims, but we are absolutely at war with millions more than have any direct affiliation with Al Qaeda." "We" - the civilized peoples of the west - are at war with "millions" of Muslims, he says. Indeed, he repeatedly posits a dichotomy between "civilized" people and Muslims: "All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the earth."

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 5:38 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 5:35 AM, compson said:

Are you mental? Sharia Law in of itself proves this. Where the fuck is the Christian Fascist State?

 

Egypt just had a revolution, they voted in a guy who wants Sharia Law. The people want Sharia Law. Show me one other religion with these fascist ideals?

 

Sharia Law is not proof. Sharia Law is not the totality of all Islamic cultures or sects. Show me proof that Islam is the most violent religion.

 

How is it even possible to show the totality of any religion?

See what I mean... You are just moving the goal posts to a stage that makes it impossible for me to prove.

So once we reach this point of the conversation, instead of just saying, "you might potentially be correct, let's examine this further and compare it to other religions with a similar geo-political/economic climate" , nothing is ever expanded on or concluded. (which btw negates your right to use the term Islamophobia...)

If your argument is that you can't compare Islamic States with other states because there are no other Religious States, then I think you may have just proved my point. Don't you find it a little extreme compared to the other religions that all moved beyond this religious rule?

I mean just look at which religion has inflicted/caused the most random terrorist acts in the last decade+. Is it really that abstract of a concept that you can't just look at the Middle East, look at absurd polls justifying completely vile and anti-western ideals, look at the imposing Islamic rule over the UN, look at the actual text of the Qu'ran (Mohammed was a murderer), look at the lack of diversity in the Middle East and the intolerance towards other religions (ie Sharia Law), and finally look at your own freedoms/culture and not conclude that the Middle Eastern Islamic States are in effect producing human beings that do have more irrational hatred of Jews, Gays, Women, and Non-Muslims.

Shit, which other religions today freak out in violent protests over a cartoon depiction?

You really can't make up your mind about this?

  Quote

Jai Maharaj, sponsor of the Satyameva Jayate website, wrote that Muhammad was "in fact a terrorist, criminal and murderer whose entire life was based on victimizing innocents and indulging in mindless violence, carnage and massacre." Maharaj chronicled what he called were Muhammad's "criminal acts in the form of battles and murders", including the killing of four merchants during the sacred month of Rajab, the killing of 70 merchants and 900 men from Mecca, the killing of the poets 'Asma' bint Marwan and Abu 'Afak, and the initial motivation to kill followed by eventual expelling of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qaynuqa.^[18]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad

no ive made up my mind. don't you worry about that.

  On 4/13/2013 at 6:06 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

no ive made up my mind. don't you worry about that.

Which is what?

that I must submit to the one true God or perish

last post