ISIS!

a little rememberence that the people of the middle east and north africa and many places elsewhere where not always islamic, lets divorce race/region from this religion.

Shouldn't we feel some empathy from what went before. Surely, some don't care for that history and it's statues and iconography, let alone it's people and traditions. Remember on that map that many of those people were christian, and before that a plethora of religions, which the roman, alexandrian and greeks before them were tolerant of.

longer vid with same content by guy

islam was a colonial religion, amongst it's many faults in the eyes of the liberal passive. 'oh no colonisation, subjugation and slavery' !

Come on guys, this shouldn't be part of your 'being enlightened pencil case tool box' of female pickup lines.

  On 5/25/2015 at 7:28 PM, Npoess said:

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 saying that humans are inherently evil.

1) I think the experimental psychologists behind such studies would caution against overstating the implications. Anytime an effect is demonstrated in a study (e.g. "correlation between disgust and political conservatism"), the folks running the study are notoriously hesitant to make any grand declarations about the findings ("conservatives are squeamish"), and as a result they often get in disagreements with publishers about such overstatements in press releases, "abstracts," and even the title of the study.

2) Nobody's saying "religion is evil."

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

 

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.

99% of Muslims might not be actively participating in fighting for ISIS, but that is in no way evidence that religion has nothing to do with ISIS. ISIS would not exist without both the direct support of other extremist muslims not directly involved in the fighting, as well as the tacit support (of varying degrees) of a sizeable minority of muslims worldwide (we're talking about at least 100 million people here). You might not be quite aware of just how prevalent belief in some of the more nasty aspects of Islam are in the world, you should check out this recent survey from PEW Research (see for example the support of capital punishment for theft, apostasy, etc., such views are a majority position in the middle-east, africa and south asia, and represent a minority ranging between 30%-10% in the rest of the Muslim world, countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi, Jordan, and Egypt are among the worst offenders).

Even in non-Muslim countries with a large majority of moderate Muslims, like Britain for example, there is still a pretty high support for the general concept of a Caliphate - that doesn't mean most of these people support ISIS (there are differing views on how a Caliphate should be structured for example, not all Muslims think it even need be a single state but more of a cultural caliphate, and certainly most of them don't support the indiscriminate and brutal killing of civilians to achieve one), but it just goes to show that this isn't a black and white issue, and religious belief is a fundamental part of the general discourse here whether you like it or not.

None of this means that all Muslims are evil iron age brutes, and that their religion is inherently evil and will continue to fuck the world over until we wipe it out, this is an opinion held by literally nobody (well nobody in this apparently nasty rationalist-atheist movement, some religious fundamentalists of other stripes might actually think like this). Such bigoted beliefs are entirely made up strawmen.

Also, none of this means that the West is absolved from all responsibility from this shit-storm. Our cack-handed meddling has been helping fuck up the place since the fall of the Ottoman empire, but conversely, it would be utterly moronic to absolve the people in the region and their broader cultural/religious worldviews either. The vast majority of Muslim deaths are caused by other Muslims and not just because of unstable political realities western intervention helped create, but from pre-existing tribal and schismatic conflicts that have existed for hundreds of years.

The situation isn't going to be resolved by the West simply ceasing their meddling either, it's a fundamental requirement that the extreme aspects of Islam reform themselves as well. This creates a rather nasty catch-22 though, as the latter isn't going to come to pass by itself if we just wish hard enough, but if it requires more of the former, then it'll just result in more of the latter that needs sorting out. It'll only be sorted out by serious attempts at compromise from both sides of the more moderate opposition on both sides, unfortunately these moderates are mostly corrupt and incompetent, which will leave lots of fertile ground for the extremists to support for some time to come I think.

  On 5/25/2015 at 7:50 PM, delet... said:

Come on guys, this shouldn't be part of your 'being enlightened pencil case tool box' of female pickup lines.

I just love this whole ironic distance thing, it's so very charming.

I mean, I might disagree with Limpy most of the time (pretty much all the time), but at least he have the guts to form an opinion and take a standpoint on the subjects. The easiest thing in the world are these snarky internet troll comments. Frankly, it makes anyone come across a bit infantile.

  On 5/25/2015 at 7:12 PM, LimpyLoo said:

us humanists

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:04 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 7:12 PM, LimpyLoo said:

us humanists

 

 

 

ummm, okay

Am I not a humanist? Or like, do you think I'm saying that the US gov't is a humanist organization?

I was saying "whoever is committed to the humanist project" not "Us Americans, who are of course humanists"

p.s. next time you say something I'm gonna post a GIF mocking it

i know you're not saying the us gvt is humanist. it's just that won't consider certain facts that make your questions pointless imo. like, shoud we, as humanists, do so and so.

  On 5/25/2015 at 7:57 PM, Npoess said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 7:50 PM, delet... said:

Come on guys, this shouldn't be part of your 'being enlightened pencil case tool box' of female pickup lines.

 

I just love this whole ironic distance thing, it's so very charming.

 

I mean, I might disagree with Limpy most of the time (pretty much all the time), but at least he have the guts to form an opinion and take a standpoint on the subjects. The easiest thing in the world are these snarky internet troll comments. Frankly, it makes you come across a bit infantile.

 

i'm sorry that you can't pin me down on a media(orce) label so that you can swat me. My bad. how about getting a sense of historic focus, and stop rebooting your brain with every change in the media cycle. I was against the iraq and afghan wars and iraq one, how much more gangster actually standing for something can you get brah. Instead of snaking around trying to discredit people that have actual values, or are open to finding out what they are and what it means and where it comes from, get some yourself.

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:18 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i know you're not saying the us gvt is humanist. it's just that won't consider certain facts that make your questions pointless imo. like, shoud we, as humanists, do so and so.

when i said "us humanists" I meant everyone in this thread btw

including you

i think we all more or less share a healthy portion of humanist values

but my point was "if we care about X, then we should try to maximize X"

not like "we westerners are morally superior creatures"

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:19 PM, delet... said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 7:57 PM, Npoess said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 7:50 PM, delet... said:

Come on guys, this shouldn't be part of your 'being enlightened pencil case tool box' of female pickup lines.

 

I just love this whole ironic distance thing, it's so very charming.

 

I mean, I might disagree with Limpy most of the time (pretty much all the time), but at least he have the guts to form an opinion and take a standpoint on the subjects. The easiest thing in the world are these snarky internet troll comments. Frankly, it makes you come across a bit infantile.

 

 

i'm sorry that you can't pin me down on a media(orce) label so that you can swat me. My bad. how about getting a sense of historic focus, and stop rebooting your brain with every change in the media cycle. I was against the iraq and afghan wars and iraq one, how much more gangster actually standing for something can you get brah. Instead of snaking around trying to discredit people that have actual values, or are open to finding out what they are and what it means and where it comes from, get some yourself.

 

I applaud you for being against the Afghan and Iraqi war, then you have good moral principles - no doubt. But that doesn't make snarky internet comments justified (sorry). And pacifism, by writing about it on a internet forum, doesn't give you card blanche to behave like a troll (again, terribly sorry). How about commenting on the actual essence of other posts instead of just labelling every other opinion, than your own, as something obscene or stupid?

Actually, this is not exclusively aimed at you, but all the irony and sarcasm towards everything just gets very tiring after a while.

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:24 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:18 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i know you're not saying the us gvt is humanist. it's just that won't consider certain facts that make your questions pointless imo. like, shoud we, as humanists, do so and so.

 

when i said "us humanists" I meant everyone in this thread btw

including you

 

i think we all more or less share a healthy portion of humanist values

 

but my point was "if we care about X, then we should try to maximize X"

not like "we westerners are morally superior creatures"

 

yeah i know that. it's just that we humanists have no political power but you're depicting the situation as if you and me had any influence on political decisions.

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:36 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:24 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:18 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i know you're not saying the us gvt is humanist. it's just that won't consider certain facts that make your questions pointless imo. like, shoud we, as humanists, do so and so.

 

when i said "us humanists" I meant everyone in this thread btw

including you

 

i think we all more or less share a healthy portion of humanist values

 

but my point was "if we care about X, then we should try to maximize X"

not like "we westerners are morally superior creatures"

 

 

yeah i know that. it's just that we humanists have no political power but you're depicting the situation as if you and me had any influence on political decisions.

 

You seem to be oscillating between arguments of principle and arguments of practicality, depending on what suites your prior attitude.

"It's not a problem...well, maybe it's a problem but we can't do anything about it."

Reminds me of those studies that demonstrate people using ad hoc rationalizations (deontology vs. consequentialism) for whatever they already believed, like the moral judgements and race study.

Would you sacrifice one white person to save five black people?

"yes, because 5 is greater than 1."

Would you sacrifice one black person to save five white people?

"no, because killing people is wrong."

Limpy: Sharia can be interpreted in different ways. Which, you know, you would get if you would bother to read actual Islamic scholars on the subject - I posted two links earlier - read them and get back to me eh?

Cultural relativity: In South Korea, it is common practice to eat dogs. This is considered morally acceptable by the majority of the population. People in the US generally consider this morally unacceptable.

For you folks citing that PEW poll please quote the first two goddamned paragraphs:

  Quote

Overwhelming percentages of Muslims in many countries want Islamic law (sharia) to be the official law of the land, according to a worldwide survey by the Pew Research Center. But many supporters of sharia say it should apply only to their country’s Muslim population.

Moreover, Muslims are not equally comfortable with all aspects of sharia: While most favor using religious law in family and property disputes, fewer support the application of severe punishments – such as whippings or cutting off hands – in criminal cases. The survey also shows that Muslims differ widely in how they interpret certain aspects of sharia, including whether divorce and family planning are morally acceptable.

So saying that ISIS wants Sharia, other Muslims want Sharia, it's all bad, is a vast oversimplification of the situation.

Caze: Read what i wrote - ISIS is using religion as an organizing/socializing tool - it makes it easier to create an other to fight against.

If it wasn't religion - it would be something else for those guys.

As to speaking out against ISIS, when you're being held hostage by a bunch of psychopaths with guns, you're not going to say much at all.

  On 5/25/2015 at 9:19 PM, chenGOD said:

Limpy: Sharia can be interpreted in different ways. Which, you know, you would get if you would bother to read actual Islamic scholars on the subject - I posted two links earlier - read them and get back to me eh?

 

Cultural relativity: In South Korea, it is common practice to eat dogs. This is considered morally acceptable by the majority of the population. People in the US generally consider this morally unacceptable.

 

For you folks citing that PEW poll please quote the first two goddamned paragraphs:

 

 

  Quote

Overwhelming percentages of Muslims in many countries want Islamic law (sharia) to be the official law of the land, according to a worldwide survey by the Pew Research Center. But many supporters of sharia say it should apply only to their country’s Muslim population.

Moreover, Muslims are not equally comfortable with all aspects of sharia: While most favor using religious law in family and property disputes, fewer support the application of severe punishments – such as whippings or cutting off hands – in criminal cases. The survey also shows that Muslims differ widely in how they interpret certain aspects of sharia, including whether divorce and family planning are morally acceptable.

 

So saying that ISIS wants Sharia, other Muslims want Sharia, it's all bad, is a vast oversimplification of the situation.

 

Caze: Read what i wrote - ISIS is using religion as an organizing/socializing tool - it makes it easier to create an other to fight against.

If it wasn't religion - it would be something else for those guys.

As to speaking out against ISIS, when you're being held hostage by a bunch of psychopaths with guns, you're not going to say much at all.

1) i will happily concede there are some more liberal interpretations of sharia

but wow that's setting the bar pretty low as far as quality of argument

it's like, "no no you don't understand...some people want a benevolent theocracy"

2) differencing moral attitudes doesn't mean that everybody's right

that's like saying differencing attitudes on 2+2=[?] means that 2+2 has multiple answers

so like,

does that mean that you think--

since i'm a moral absolutist--

that i don't actually understand that people having differencing moral attitudes?

and if i just brushed up on the different moral attitudes around the world

i would be a moral relativist?

think that through and get back to me, eh

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:33 PM, Npoess said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:19 PM, delet... said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 7:57 PM, Npoess said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 7:50 PM, delet... said:

Come on guys, this shouldn't be part of your 'being enlightened pencil case tool box' of female pickup lines.

 

I just love this whole ironic distance thing, it's so very charming.

 

I mean, I might disagree with Limpy most of the time (pretty much all the time), but at least he have the guts to form an opinion and take a standpoint on the subjects. The easiest thing in the world are these snarky internet troll comments. Frankly, it makes you come across a bit infantile.

 

 

i'm sorry that you can't pin me down on a media(orce) label so that you can swat me. My bad. how about getting a sense of historic focus, and stop rebooting your brain with every change in the media cycle. I was against the iraq and afghan wars and iraq one, how much more gangster actually standing for something can you get brah. Instead of snaking around trying to discredit people that have actual values, or are open to finding out what they are and what it means and where it comes from, get some yourself.

 

 

I applaud you for being against the Afghan and Iraqi war, then you have good moral principles - no doubt. But that doesn't make snarky internet comments justified (sorry).

yes, being principled doesn't matter when someone elses ego is on the line does it.

just grow a pair and learn when not to give a fuck, watch those anime shorts i posted, some are amazing.

  On 5/25/2015 at 9:19 PM, chenGOD said:

 

For you folks citing that PEW poll please quote the first two goddamned paragraphs:

 

 

  Quote

Overwhelming percentages of Muslims in many countries want Islamic law (sharia) to be the official law of the land, according to a worldwide survey by the Pew Research Center. But many supporters of sharia say it should apply only to their country’s Muslim population.

Moreover, Muslims are not equally comfortable with all aspects of sharia: While most favor using religious law in family and property disputes, fewer support the application of severe punishments – such as whippings or cutting off hands – in criminal cases. The survey also shows that Muslims differ widely in how they interpret certain aspects of sharia, including whether divorce and family planning are morally acceptable.

 

So saying that ISIS wants Sharia, other Muslims want Sharia, it's all bad, is a vast oversimplification of the situation.

 

Caze: Read what i wrote - ISIS is using religion as an organizing/socializing tool - it makes it easier to create an other to fight against.

If it wasn't religion - it would be something else for those guys.

As to speaking out against ISIS, when you're being held hostage by a bunch of psychopaths with guns, you're not going to say much at all.

You're right that it is a vast oversimplification, so it's a good thing that it's not an argument that I'm making. Yet more straw-manning going on here. In my previous post I already conceded the plurality of Muslim beliefs, it doesn't affect my argument though. It is simply a fact that a substantial number of Muslims around the world have beliefs that are in alignment with those of ISIS, these are doctrinal religious beliefs, it is a nonsense to suggest ISIS would find some other justification for their actions, their actions are based on religious doctrine. Just because these beliefs don't align with what some people want to hold up as the true Islam (Religion of Peace TM) is irrelevant, there is no true Islam, there are just Muslims who hold varying religious beliefs. Arguing against the harmful nature of certain specific beliefs is not bigoted against Muslims in general, it only discriminates against those who hold them and base their actions on them.

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:50 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:36 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:24 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:18 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i know you're not saying the us gvt is humanist. it's just that won't consider certain facts that make your questions pointless imo. like, shoud we, as humanists, do so and so.

 

when i said "us humanists" I meant everyone in this thread btw

including you

 

i think we all more or less share a healthy portion of humanist values

 

but my point was "if we care about X, then we should try to maximize X"

not like "we westerners are morally superior creatures"

 

 

yeah i know that. it's just that we humanists have no political power but you're depicting the situation as if you and me had any influence on political decisions.

 

 

You seem to be oscillating between arguments of principle and arguments of practicality, depending on what suites your prior attitude.

 

"It's not a problem...well, maybe it's a problem but we can't do anything about it."

 

Reminds me of those studies that demonstrate people using ad hoc rationalizations (deontology vs. consequentialism) for whatever they already believed, like the moral judgements and race study.

 

Would you sacrifice one white person to save five black people?

"yes, because 5 is greater than 1."

 

Would you sacrifice one black person to save five white people?

"no, because killing people is wrong."

 

my point is the us gvt funded isis for whatever reason, therefore i don't need to ask myself if my country should intervene militarily or not to protect innocent people from being killed by fuckwits. our leaders will do whatever fits their interests (not ours "humanists") so why do you come up with stuff like "we rationalists have a moral duty" when "we" (the people) have no responsibility, let alone influence on this mess?

i personnally think if "we" have a moral duty at all (not as "good humanists and rationalists", simply as human beings), it is to fight this pyromaniac fireman policy. by what means, that's a different topic.

when the sage points at the moon, the fool looks at his finger: stop missing the point and start asking yourself relevant questions. especially if you consider yourself a rationalist.

lol, the US government has funded ISIS?!?!

  On 5/26/2015 at 12:18 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:50 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:36 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:24 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 8:18 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i know you're not saying the us gvt is humanist. it's just that won't consider certain facts that make your questions pointless imo. like, shoud we, as humanists, do so and so.

 

when i said "us humanists" I meant everyone in this thread btw

including you

 

i think we all more or less share a healthy portion of humanist values

 

but my point was "if we care about X, then we should try to maximize X"

not like "we westerners are morally superior creatures"

 

 

yeah i know that. it's just that we humanists have no political power but you're depicting the situation as if you and me had any influence on political decisions.

 

 

You seem to be oscillating between arguments of principle and arguments of practicality, depending on what suites your prior attitude.

 

"It's not a problem...well, maybe it's a problem but we can't do anything about it."

 

Reminds me of those studies that demonstrate people using ad hoc rationalizations (deontology vs. consequentialism) for whatever they already believed, like the moral judgements and race study.

 

Would you sacrifice one white person to save five black people?

"yes, because 5 is greater than 1."

 

Would you sacrifice one black person to save five white people?

"no, because killing people is wrong."

 

 

my point is the us gvt funded isis for whatever reason, therefore i don't need to ask myself if my country should intervene militarily or not to protect innocent people from being killed by fuckwits. our leaders will do whatever fits their interests (not ours "humanists") so why do you come up with stuff like "we rationalists have a moral duty" when "we" (the people) have no responsibility, let alone influence on this mess?

i personnally think if "we" have a moral duty at all (not as "good humanists and rationalists", simply as human beings), it is to fight this pyromaniac fireman policy. by what means, that's a different topic.

when the sage points at the moon, the fool looks at his finger: stop missing the point and start asking yourself relevant questions. especially if you consider yourself a rationalist.

 

i've gotten alot of criticisms over the last few pages

and most of them are formulated like this

"you don't know enough history"

"you americans are in no position to criticise"

"your position is a fabrication"

"you're being impractical"

"you're worrying about the wrong stuff"

"you're missing the point"

anything to avoid addressing my actual points, i guess

i'm not answering your questions because i find them irrelevant given the context, and because not answering them fits my moral principle of not wasting my time asking myself what i judge irrelevant questions :)

  On 5/26/2015 at 12:52 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i'm not answering your questions because i find them irrelevant given the context, and because not answering them fits my moral principle of not wasting my time asking myself what i judge irrelevant questions :)

we've all been talking about the same thing for the last 3-4 pages

and you come in here a page ago and tell me i'm talking about the wrong stuff?

lol

*here's an annoying, condescending GIF to suit your 4chan style of debate*

lol nothing beats a good old reaction gif :)

btw, other users told you they thought you were talking about the wrong stuff but for some reason now you think i'm the only one. unless i didn't read carefully through this thread. anyway let's agree to disagree.

  On 5/26/2015 at 1:09 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

lol nothing beats a good old reaction gif :)

btw, other users told you they thought you were talking about the wrong stuff but for some reason now you think i'm the only one. unless i didn't read carefully through this thread. anyway let's agree to disagree.

i mean, i'm happy to talk about whatever

i'd never forgo the opportunity to zing the US Gov't, for instance

  On 5/25/2015 at 10:47 PM, caze said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 9:19 PM, chenGOD said:

 

For you folks citing that PEW poll please quote the first two goddamned paragraphs:

 

 

  Quote

Overwhelming percentages of Muslims in many countries want Islamic law (sharia) to be the official law of the land, according to a worldwide survey by the Pew Research Center. But many supporters of sharia say it should apply only to their country’s Muslim population.

Moreover, Muslims are not equally comfortable with all aspects of sharia: While most favor using religious law in family and property disputes, fewer support the application of severe punishments – such as whippings or cutting off hands – in criminal cases. The survey also shows that Muslims differ widely in how they interpret certain aspects of sharia, including whether divorce and family planning are morally acceptable.

 

So saying that ISIS wants Sharia, other Muslims want Sharia, it's all bad, is a vast oversimplification of the situation.

 

Caze: Read what i wrote - ISIS is using religion as an organizing/socializing tool - it makes it easier to create an other to fight against.

If it wasn't religion - it would be something else for those guys.

As to speaking out against ISIS, when you're being held hostage by a bunch of psychopaths with guns, you're not going to say much at all.

 

You're right that it is a vast oversimplification, so it's a good thing that it's not an argument that I'm making. Yet more straw-manning going on here. In my previous post I already conceded the plurality of Muslim beliefs, it doesn't affect my argument though. It is simply a fact that a substantial number of Muslims around the world have beliefs that are in alignment with those of ISIS, these are doctrinal religious beliefs, it is a nonsense to suggest ISIS would find some other justification for their actions, their actions are based on religious doctrine. Just because these beliefs don't align with what some people want to hold up as the true Islam (Religion of Peace TM) is irrelevant, there is no true Islam, there are just Muslims who hold varying religious beliefs. Arguing against the harmful nature of certain specific beliefs is not bigoted against Muslims in general, it only discriminates against those who hold them and base their actions on them.

 

ISIS (and people who want power and control in general), will use the most expedient tool possible to organize and socialize people under their control into following them. ISIS might very well believe what they are saying, but if they couldn't use religion, they would use other means to assert control. Limpy has already Godwined up the thread - but I'll put this out there: Hitler definitely believed that Jews were lower than vermin, but that wasn't his key point in organizing support in his power grab.

I agree with your last sentence by the way.