ISIS!

  On 5/25/2015 at 7:23 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 6:45 AM, goDel said:

What? Misreading is an understatement. IF isis would believe in the divinity of the koran, than how could they 'misread'/cherry pick it so blatently? The word of allah was supposed to be perfect, right? So they just happen to completely ignore some fundamental parts of the koran because of their beliefs? The fact they are openly cherry picking suggests they use the koran for self serving purposes. And those tend to ignore any religious logic.

Imo, your focus on their 'beliefs' ignores the (political) interests of isis. They clearly operate out of political interests as they're trying to establish a state.

I feel like you are bending over backwards to attack religious beliefs even when it's obvious those are only part of a far bigger story.

Cherry-picking? The Koran isn't this nice, peaceful document with one or two ugly bits. It's more the other way around.

 

Muhammad wasn't some socialist beatnik sorta dude. He was a brutal warlord who advocated stoning adulterers, for instance. He went around killing people if they didn't convert to Islam. Sharia Law is based directly on his teachings.

 

Again, I feel like I'm losing my mind here. In what way are ISIS not acting like people who think the Koran is the perfect word of God, and is meant to be read literally? Seriously, this feels like a Twilight Zone episode or something...

 

 

You're not alone, just FYI.

  On 5/25/2015 at 7:41 AM, melancholera said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 7:23 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 6:45 AM, goDel said:

What? Misreading is an understatement. IF isis would believe in the divinity of the koran, than how could they 'misread'/cherry pick it so blatently? The word of allah was supposed to be perfect, right? So they just happen to completely ignore some fundamental parts of the koran because of their beliefs? The fact they are openly cherry picking suggests they use the koran for self serving purposes. And those tend to ignore any religious logic.

Imo, your focus on their 'beliefs' ignores the (political) interests of isis. They clearly operate out of political interests as they're trying to establish a state.

I feel like you are bending over backwards to attack religious beliefs even when it's obvious those are only part of a far bigger story.

 

Cherry-picking? The Koran isn't this nice, peaceful document with one or two ugly bits. It's more the other way around.

Muhammad wasn't some socialist beatnik sorta dude. He was a brutal warlord who advocated stoning adulterers, for instance. He went around killing people if they didn't convert to Islam. Sharia Law is based directly on his teachings.

Again, I feel like I'm losing my mind here. In what way are ISIS not acting like people who think the Koran is the perfect word of God, and is meant to be read literally? Seriously, this feels like a Twilight Zone episode or something...

You're not alone, just FYI.

Thank God

Muhammad also took prisoners and demanded ransom for their release.

  On 5/25/2015 at 4:28 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 4:03 AM, chenGOD said:

 

The two big problems are that:
1. You are assuming that ISIS is taking over and controlling territory for religious reasons, instead of using religion as a tool to take control of resources and amass wealth and power.
2. You are insinuating that ISIS is representative of all practicing Muslims.

 

As an added bonus you are advocating that something should be done. This of course is precisely useless advice. Come up with a policy, explain why you think it is necessary to implement said policy, and explain the pros and cons of the policy along with expected results.

1) there is zero evidence to suggest they don't actually believe what they say they do
they act exactly like people who take the Koran literally

this is a common belief that dumbfounds me
where is your evidence that they are cynically using religion?



2) no i'm not...why do you think that?


dude, i don't know what to do
any suggestions i made would be constrained by my limited knowledge of international law, political constraints, military logistics, etc

i mean, do you think we should do nothing?
clearly if there would be zero civilian casualties we (or somebody else) should at least capture them if not kill them
but like i said i don't have any specific prescriptions

1) They might believe in what they are doing, but their end-game is still power. They want to establish control and dominance. They are using religion cynically because as the vast majority of Muslims do not agree with their interpretation of the Koran, indeed, some argue their inspiration is a man completely untrained in Islam. Others use previous Islamic scholarship (PDF link, read pages 26-28 of the PDF to see how they define a Muslim) to show that ISIS' use of execution for apostasy is completely contradictory to the Koran. In other words, ISIS is using a cynical interpretation of Islam to achieve their goals of amassing territory, power, and wealth.
Additionally, the highest estimate of ISIS fighters is 200,000. I will double that and say they are 400,000. This equals 0.025% of the followers of Islam around the world. What does that tell you about reasonable interpretations of the Koran?

2) This post where you say:
"if you belong to a cult
who worships a holy book
that says all non-believers should die
and you kill a non-believer or two
it's probably not a coincidence"

Is a pretty strong insinuation that you think ISIS represents all Muslims.

Your prescription says it all though - "clearly if there would be zero civilian casualties we (or somebody else) should at least capture them if not kill them"
You condemn them for killing because you say they are doing it in the name of religion (actually they're killing to establish control of a region and reap the benefits that goes with control). Then turn around and suggest that we should kill them, as long as there is no collateral damage. So much for your moral absolutism. You might think moral relativism is bullshit (you're wrong, but that's a different topic) - but moral absolutism gets you nowhere when trying to work in the real world.

At this point the best thing to do is to get the hell out of dodge, and openly fund/equip groups that would bring stability to the region. Once you have stability you try to establish why progressive virtues should be espoused (because it brings about order and more equal prosperity). Because after all, that's what you believe.

 

And just to be clear, you're against all religious belief right?

I have a few questions

 

1. Why do these older politically charged threads from years ago seem to be getting a second round years later?

 

2. Since the time has passed since the initial post has the story developed any particular way to prove one view point over another on this issue?

 

3. Are there any practicing muslims on WATMM that could actually set the record straight about what a average "moderate" sunni and or shiite muslim believer who just so happens to also practice IDM believes ? ........... In regards to the Quran and ISIS's ISEYE (What the hell is the plural of ISIS damn ) Pegasus Pegasi Pegasuses ??

 

Anyway IDM Muslim speak ! Tell us what's up because I am sick of reading what non muslim watammer's think you believe in regards to

what an everyday muslim believes and how that differs from what ISIS believes. I personally know the difference as a lot of posters in this thread seem to know as well

and I think its basically what Farr said but I would love to hear a muslim WATMM member way in on this thread just to balance out the spectrum of a multi cultural WATMM experience

 

I will say this I respect people who are truly peaceful and if they gained that peace via some form of organized religion I respect that but at the same time I am miffed

by it because all organized religion to me seems a bit too dividing and closed off to produce any open all inclusive peace

 

4. I think how this will play out is kinda like how in the movie style wars no one knew who cap was and when they did not know who cap was they thought cap was any number of white writers but then cap came forward and wrote war next to fat albert and it was revealed blood wars buddy

 

I wish it was as simple as some people are assholes

and they come forth and say yup that's me I am the asshole

but things like this never seem to be that easy or black and white

or revealed and for lack of a better word Solved

  On 5/24/2015 at 9:49 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 5/24/2015 at 9:41 PM, Alcofribas said:

well then all you're really saying is that religion, along with other factors, has a causal factor. i completely agree with this. but again so what?

and the war on terror are terribly naive.

alco, you're tamping down his Sam Harris bone, thats why so what. not cool

 

all hail rational atheism, the kind that ignores our western imperialism and only tells you how dangerous muslims are (those other religions are totes dangerous too but christians and jews got all their craziness out of the way 1000 years ago bro!)

 

 

Yeah, because it's definitely rational atheists that are xenophobic to other religious cultures, not hardcore Christians (or other "good" religious people for that matter).....

Edited May 25, 2015 by Npoess

years ago? you mean almost a year ago? ok...

This fucking thread

  On 5/25/2015 at 10:20 AM, Timothy Forward said:

This fucking thread

 

Fantastic contribution.

  On 5/25/2015 at 10:36 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 10:20 AM, Timothy Forward said:

This fucking thread

 

Fantastic contribution.

passive aggressive opinion post

  On 5/25/2015 at 11:04 AM, phling said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 10:36 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 10:20 AM, Timothy Forward said:

This fucking thread

Fantastic contribution.

passive aggressive opinion post

 

 

Cheeky sarcastic poke at moderator post

  On 5/25/2015 at 11:23 AM, Timothy Forward said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 11:04 AM, phling said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 10:36 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 10:20 AM, Timothy Forward said:

This fucking thread

Fantastic contribution.

passive aggressive opinion post

Cheeky sarcastic poke at moderator post

Blatant handing out

NO YOU

  On 5/25/2015 at 11:42 AM, usagi said:

Blatant handing out

 

You think I'm a wanker? Why?

i agree with limpy on the self hating liberal whitie thing, and believe it to be the cause of many a problematic watmm discussion. And yes mate they are passively accepting of their part in a twilight zone episode which also spooks me the fuck out.

 

I won't say anymore lest the handbag carrying manwafers, beat me to death fueled by righteous indignation over not subscribing to group think opinion.

 

ie: i agree with limpy and lets leave it at that. /exits thread.

 

 

/ many 'hehe's of different size and font, in homage to das joker

i think we as good humanists and rationalists have to fund terrorists so they can help pushing forward our imperialist agenda. and if we don't get the result we wanted, we'll go on a crusade to save the world because that's what responsible people do.

straw man tregaskin, thats a way you can't win, not for an infinitin.

 

ie: i'm aware that the powers be that aren't me funded this whole shebangbangkillidee. That is quite apart from finding wahhabism an abhorrent stain on the earth or hiding to yourself stats about who's killing whom and what rate in the US or any number of things guided by a moral compass without a pole, it's needle swaying with the win.

since our good humanist leaders are responsible for isis playing a role in the middle east, discussing ethics and moral values afterwards doesn't make any sense imo. unless i get limpy's point wrong, i think mine goes without saying, is all.

  On 5/25/2015 at 2:47 PM, delet... said:

i agree with limpy on the self hating liberal whitie thing, and believe it to be the cause of many a problematic watmm discussion. And yes mate they are passively accepting of their part in a twilight zone episode which also spooks me the fuck out.

 

I won't say anymore lest the handbag carrying manwafers, beat me to death fueled by righteous indignation over not subscribing to group think opinion.

 

ie: i agree with limpy and lets leave it at that. /exits thread.

 

 

/ many 'hehe's of different size and font, in homage to das joker

 

i like your new avatar. where have you been lately?

 

i think limpy's entire position is something of a fabrication. the entire thing just reads like it's from a sam harris pamphlet; everything from the trite observations about belief and islam, the concern about liberals, the concern about "moral relativism" and "postmodernism," the "no true scotsman" fallacy, etc. this is all straight out of the sam harris playbook. and it says absolutely nothing whatsoever.

 

none of those points applies to the present discussion, no one here is defending any of the things he's railing against. the situation is the same in the draw muhammad thread. limpy is just making simplistic observations and puffing them up with sam harris-esque talking points instead of having an actual conversation.

  On 5/25/2015 at 2:47 PM, delet... said:

i agree with limpy on the self hating liberal whitie thing, and believe it to be the cause of many a problematic watmm discussion. And yes mate they are passively accepting of their part in a twilight zone episode which also spooks me the fuck out.

 

I won't say anymore lest the handbag carrying manwafers, beat me to death fueled by righteous indignation over not subscribing to group think opinion.

 

ie: i agree with limpy and lets leave it at that. /exits thread.

 

 

/ many 'hehe's of different size and font, in homage to das joker

Who's self-hating up in here?

We can all agree that ISIS is doing some heinous shit.

Limpy's assertion is that if you removed religion from the equation, you would remove a lot of the atrocities that are committed by humans, against other humans.

My assertion is that religion has nothing do with it, beyond being a useful tool to organize people into a group. This is evidenced by the >99% of Muslims/Christians/Buddhists/Jews that don't commit atrocities.

 

Moral relativism allows one to say that some parts of other cultures are foreign and not easily understood unless one spends a significant amount of time living in that culture (so for example simply watching a lot of hentai doesn't make one an expert in Japan). It allows for flexibility when working in the real world. It does not negate the basic inalienable rights that are bestowed upon us simply for being born.

 

Moral absolutism leads to dogma and extremism, and is part of the reason ISIS exists.

 

PS dont you find it just a touch ironic that limpys solution to killing (apparently his main contention with ISIS) is to go in and do some more killing? Btw limpy, you'll be sure to sign up for the military right?

  On 5/25/2015 at 4:49 PM, chenGOD said:

watching a lot of hentai doesn't make one an expert in Japan

 

yes it does

  On 5/25/2015 at 4:32 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 2:47 PM, delet... said:

i agree with limpy on the self hating liberal whitie thing, and believe it to be the cause of many a problematic watmm discussion. And yes mate they are passively accepting of their part in a twilight zone episode which also spooks me the fuck out.

 

I won't say anymore lest the handbag carrying manwafers, beat me to death fueled by righteous indignation over not subscribing to group think opinion.

 

ie: i agree with limpy and lets leave it at that. /exits thread.

 

 

/ many 'hehe's of different size and font, in homage to das joker

 

i like your new avatar. where have you been lately?

 

i think limpy's entire position is something of a fabrication. the entire thing just reads like it's from a sam harris pamphlet; everything from the trite observations about belief and islam, the concern about liberals, the concern about "moral relativism" and "postmodernism," the "no true scotsman" fallacy, etc. this is all straight out of the sam harris playbook. and it says absolutely nothing whatsoever.

 

none of those points applies to the present discussion, no one here is defending any of the things he's railing against. the situation is the same in the draw muhammad thread. limpy is just making simplistic observations and puffing them up with sam harris-esque talking points instead of having an actual conversation.

 

 

So really, the main thing is, nobody really knows what anyone else means. I'm up for that as being the be all and end all of this thread. I was just agreeing to limpy from the last page where he said what about the thingoe.

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:28 AM, chenGOD said:

 

Additionally, the highest estimate of ISIS fighters is 200,000. I will double that and say they are 400,000. This equals 0.025% of the followers of Islam around the world. What does that tell you about reasonable interpretations of the Koran?

 

 

 

Is a pretty strong insinuation that you think ISIS represents all Muslims.

 

Your prescription says it all though - "clearly if there would be zero civilian casualties we (or somebody else) should at least capture them if not kill them"

You condemn them for killing because you say they are doing it in the name of religion (actually they're killing to establish control of a region and reap the benefits that goes with control). Then turn around and suggest that we should kill them, as long as there is no collateral damage. So much for your moral absolutism. You might think moral relativism is bullshit (you're wrong, but that's a different topic) - but moral absolutism gets you nowhere when trying to work in the real world.

 

At this point the best thing to do is to get the hell out of dodge, and openly fund/equip groups that would bring stability to the region. Once you have stability you try to establish why progressive virtues should be espoused (because it brings about order and more equal prosperity). Because after all, that's what you believe.

 

 

And just to be clear, you're against all religious belief right?

 

 

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Support

 

A 2013 survey based on the opinion of 38,000 individuals by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that support for making sharia the official law of the land is very high in many Muslim-majority Islamic countries.^[159] A majority of Muslims favor sharia as the law of land in Afghanistan (99%), Iraq (91%), Niger (86%), Malaysia (86%), Pakistan (84%), Morocco (83%), Bangladesh (82%), Egypt (74%), Indonesia (72%), Jordan (71%), Uganda (66%), Ethiopia (65%), Mali (63%), Ghana (58%), and Tunisia (56%).^[160] Among regional Muslim populations elsewhere, significant percentage favored sharia law: Nigeria (71%), Russia (42%), Kyrgyzstan (35%), Lebanon (29%), Kosovo (20%), Tanzania (37%).^[159] In Muslim-majority countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Lebanon and Turkey, 40% to 74% of Muslims wanted sharia law to apply to non-Muslims as well.^[159] A 2008 YouGov poll in the United Kingdom found 40% of Muslims interviewed wanted sharia in British law.^[161]

 

 

In case you missed it, that last line says: "A 2008 YouGov poll in the United Kingdom found 40% of Muslims interviewed wanted sharia in British law."

 

It's not that I think ISIS "represents all Muslims," but rather that ISIS wants Sharia and so do the figures above. Sharia is not some fringe phenomenon. If you blaspheme (e.g. draw Muhammad) under Sharia, you are executed. If you decide you don't want to be Muslim any more, you are executed.

 

These figures should chill us humanists to the bone, no? Can anyone just momentarily deactivate their 'PC instinct' and simply admit that these numbers are unfortunate?

 

2) If I had my way, I would want to stop bad things from happening without hurting anybody. But that option is not currently on the table.

 

 

3) I think to the degree that a belief is factually wrong, we should find that unfortunate. When someone thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old and that evolution is an atheist conspiracy, then we should not simply take the position that "hey, whatever man...it's all good."

 

Basically, I see religious belief as an education problem. To the extant that we lived in a shared space and our actions have consequences for others, I think education--at least concerning the causal mechanisms of the world--is a moral imperative.

 

(For instance, Dr. Fuambai Ahmadu argues that Female Genital Mutilation should be acceptable when the women want it for themselves. However, the problem is that informed consent requires that one actually understands the causal mechanisms of the world. For instance, If someone teaches you from birth that there is a powerful supernatural being who will damn you to hell unless you give $5 to the anyone who asks, and then someone asks you for $5 and you agree to give it to them: that is not informed consent--regardless of whether the person teaching you that believes it or not. Similarly, if you teach a women from birth that there is a supernatural being that would strongly prefer it if women were "circumcised," then once again that nullifies the whole idea of informed consent...)

 

I find it unfortunate that so many people around here champion Carl Sagan, and yet don't actually seem to share some of his more deeply-held values:

 

"Science is more than a body of knowledge: It's a way of thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true--to be skeptical of those in authority--then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes ambling along.”

  On 5/25/2015 at 3:53 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

since our good humanist leaders are responsible for isis playing a role in the middle east, discussing ethics and moral values afterwards doesn't make any sense imo. unless i get limpy's point wrong, i think mine goes without saying, is all.

 

yes of course like my humanist heroes Bush and Cheney and Obama

  On 5/25/2015 at 4:49 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 2:47 PM, delet... said:

i agree with limpy on the self hating liberal whitie thing, and believe it to be the cause of many a problematic watmm discussion. And yes mate they are passively accepting of their part in a twilight zone episode which also spooks me the fuck out.

 

I won't say anymore lest the handbag carrying manwafers, beat me to death fueled by righteous indignation over not subscribing to group think opinion.

 

ie: i agree with limpy and lets leave it at that. /exits thread.

 

 

/ many 'hehe's of different size and font, in homage to das joker

Who's self-hating up in here?

We can all agree that ISIS is doing some heinous shit.

Limpy's assertion is that if you removed religion from the equation, you would remove a lot of the atrocities that are committed by humans, against other humans.

My assertion is that religion has nothing do with it, beyond being a useful tool to organize people into a group. This is evidenced by the >99% of Muslims/Christians/Buddhists/Jews that don't commit atrocities.

 

Moral relativism allows one to say that some parts of other cultures are foreign and not easily understood unless one spends a significant amount of time living in that culture (so for example simply watching a lot of hentai doesn't make one an expert in Japan). It allows for flexibility when working in the real world. It does not negate the basic inalienable rights that are bestowed upon us simply for being born.

 

Moral absolutism leads to dogma and extremism, and is part of the reason ISIS exists.

 

PS dont you find it just a touch ironic that limpys solution to killing (apparently his main contention with ISIS) is to go in and do some more killing? Btw limpy, you'll be sure to sign up for the military right?

 

 

1) name me one thing that would be morally wrong in one culture and morally correct in another (are you one of those folks that think that since different moral attitudes exist in different cultures, then moral relativism is true?)

 

 

2) Irony? When someone is going around murdering and oppressing people, they should be stopped. If that can be done without killing anyone, then I am all for that. What, do you think ISIS should be allowed to stand?

Edited May 25, 2015 by LimpyLoo

The human brain hardwired for religious thinking and faith, this have been proven in many studies, even some atheists reflects this with the deification of rationalism and sciences - so saying religion is evil is like saying that humans are inherently evil.

 

Islam is an old and static religion, just like societies, this religion should have gone through a developing reformation process that follows societal evolution, which obviously haven't happened, support of sharia law says that a reformation is long overdue.

 

Then are the really extremist muslims, they are obviously only a very small percentage of the overall muslim population of the world, most muslim are completely normal and balanced people like the rest of us, but obviously we almost exclusively hear about the extreme and fundamentalists through the western media, which paints the picture of a culture of destructive and villainous character. From a historical perceptive that's highly hypocritical, since a lot of gloomy characteristics were the case for own culture, and even today we see that right extremism (for example) is much more prevalent in western cultures than it's ever discussed and portrayed by our own media, it's just disconnected from religion here, but it is still here - obviously just to say that labelling a specific culture as particularly evil is moronic and ignorant.

 

All that being said, a reformation and modernization of Islam, I think, would suppress some aspects that make some extremism morally legitimatized (for the very few that are obviously drawn to it to begin with), it might not eradicate extremism completely from the world, but some of the medieval aspects of Islam are just not calibrated for the modern world. Like when death penalty for infidelity is considered necessary by sharia law, there are definitely aspects that needs to be modernized, that simply can't be acceptable anymore and Muslims should rebel against it and distance themselves from it (this I genuinely believe), especially when they migrate to cultures where it's not acceptable anymore. They don't need assimilate to their new culture in any way, or give up on their religious beliefs, but certain aspects of the Islamic religion are simply things of the past that doesn't belong in the modern world.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Npoess