I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

[Immanuel Can]

No but I wouldn't have expected you to treat other religions with the same disrespect that someone like me would.

"Respect" is something one gives to persons, not to viewpoints, ideologies or even religions. The person may be in error, but he or she still deserves respect. However, the ideological error under which he or she labours is not ultimately his or her friend...it is an enemy to that person's happiness and well-being. So if you're concerned to respect the person, you don't leave him or her to labour under a delusion. You do your best to help him or her out. And that means that you don't give the false ideology a false respect that prolongs the delusion.

Fair enough?

[Harbal]

Fair enough?

No, I don't think you're belittling the belefs of others out of concern for their happiness or well-being. I had to smile when you made the comment about their "ideological errors".

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

"Respect" is something one gives to persons, not to viewpoints, ideologies or even religions. The person may be in error, but he or she still deserves respect. However, the ideological error under which he or she labours is not ultimately his or her friend...it is an enemy to that person's happiness and well-being. So if you're concerned to respect the person, you don't leave him or her to labour under a delusion. You do your best to help him or her out. And that means that you don't give the false ideology a false respect that prolongs the delusion.

I'd rather feel miserable than believe what is unbelievable or even improbable . Do you think that it's best to feel glad?

President Trump's decision to support coalmines instead of modern renewables is not making most people feel glad, and so there is hope.

[Walker]

I'd rather feel miserable than believe what is unbelievable or even improbable . Do you think that it's best to feel glad?

President Trump's decision to support coalmines instead of modern renewables is not making most people feel glad, and so there is hope.

That’s because a lot of people rely on feelings based on propaganda rather than critical thinking.

[Immanuel Can]

No, I don't think you're belittling the belefs of others out of concern for their happiness or well-being. I had to smile when you made the comment about their "ideological errors".

You're free to think as you please, of course. Everybody is. But that doesn't mean everybody is right just because they think it.

Think it over, and you'll see.

[Londoner]

"Respect" is something one gives to persons, not to viewpoints, ideologies or even religions. The person may be in error, but he or she still deserves respect. However, the ideological error under which he or she labours is not ultimately his or her friend...it is an enemy to that person's happiness and well-being. So if you're concerned to respect the person, you don't leave him or her to labour under a delusion. You do your best to help him or her out. And that means that you don't give the false ideology a false respect that prolongs the delusion.

Fair enough?

Talking to some groups I am involved with, my impression is that the current campaign against Islamic fundamentalism may be having an effect that some of those involved have not expected. I think it is accelerating a movement against all religion. There seems to be a growing indifference towards the squabbles between all the various sorts of 'crazy people'; Christians, Jews and Muslims.

I think it is perhaps to do with the term 'preachers of hate' that has been used to describe radical Muslim clerics. I think quite a lot of the public has permanently linked the two words, such that all preachers are seen in that way by default. And, of course, we do get Jewish and Christian preachers who fit that description.

The context was discussions around books describing the historic persecution of Christians under various sorts of revolutionary regimes. I did not expect a normal gathering nowadays to be against this persecution because they were also Christian, but because they held a general liberal view that we should tolerate religion. I was somewhat surprised to find there was now a certain ambivalence about that; the closest analogy would be the way we treat smoking! We accept that people do it, we wouldn't actually punish individual smokers, but it is good if society is trying to discourage it. Ditto religion.

[Immanuel Can]

Talking to some groups I am involved with, my impression is that the current campaign against Islamic fundamentalism may be having an effect that some of those involved have not expected. I think it is accelerating a movement against all religion. There seems to be a growing indifference towards the squabbles between all the various sorts of 'crazy people'; Christians, Jews and Muslims.

That may be true. But if it is, it's a damning stroke against the awareness of such people. That they would imagine that all beliefs are just "crazies" would suggest that they are not aware of any difference among them, and so irrationally extend from one to the next.

Is it logical to think that because, say Nazism was evil, that the ideology that fought Nazism must equally be evil? How stupid a judgment would that be? Yet I agree with you: people make that mistake all the time with regard to religions.

It's just an indictment of their ignorance and folly, really, if that's the conclusion they draw.

...the closest analogy would be the way we treat smoking! We accept that people do it, we wouldn't actually punish individual smokers, but it is good if society is trying to discourage it. Ditto religion.

Two problems: 1) smoking is known to be toxic -- whether or not "religions" all are is a matter of genuine debate; there are very serious reasons to think some of it is actually very socially beneficial. Some is even potentially true. 2) tolerance of belief (Muslim faith) is exactly what we're advocating here...but not of the IMPOSITION of belief on the public against their wishes (Sharia law).

So the analogy needs some revising.

[Belinda]

I'd rather feel miserable than believe what is unbelievable or even improbable . Do you think that it's best to feel glad?

President Trump's decision to support coalmines instead of modern renewables is not making most people feel glad, and so there is hope.

That’s because a lot of people rely on feelings based on propaganda rather than critical thinking.

What do people in Florida think causes extraordinary hurricane surges?

[Science Fan]

What's comical are all the bigots who claim to be concerned about the refugee crisis in Syria, while not once writing any condemning comments about Russia. Russia is in Syria, and has been for more than a year, conducting daily bombing runs and brutalizing the people of Syria. Russia is there to protect its military base, not because of any humanitarian concerns. There is also a great deal of evidence that in addition to Russia causing the refugee crisis by murdering people in Syria, it is also publishing false articles in social media platforms throughout Europe --- claiming that Muslim refugees are committing all sorts of crimes. Russia is also supporting far right political parties that are opposed to helping the refugees. So, not only is Russia murdering people, causing them to flee Syria, but Russia is also actively interfering with humanitarian aid efforts to help the refugees. That's a sick, criminal act, and it is being done by Russia, not by the USA. The fact the people who claim to be so concerned about Syria voice no condemnation against Russia, but ridiculously claim that the fault all lies with the USA, shows that these people are merely bigots against the USA and are completely unconcerned about assisting anyone in Syria.

Too bad for the bigots that people can easily look up the real facts and people do not need to believe in overly simplistic and fantastically unfounded bigotry against the USA, or other nations, like Israel. From what I see, most people who are bigots against the USA are also bigots against Israel and Jews. Social media may be a safe-haven for bigots, but, hopefully this will change in the future, as people become more interested in real factual analysis of political situations, and discard the childish displays of bigotry on social media. Hopefully.

[Arising_uk]

What's comical are all the bigots who claim to be concerned about the refugee crisis in Syria, while not once writing any condemning comments about Russia. Russia is in Syria, and has been for more than a year, conducting daily bombing runs and brutalizing the people of Syria. Russia is there to protect its military base, not because of any humanitarian concerns. ...

Well dur! And the same reason why the Yank fostered revolution there. That and that they seem to be Saudi's puppets but the house of Saud may not thank you for funding and arming the radical islamists.

Not if you think I'm one of these 'bigots' but I'm not condemning the US, just correcting the bullshit you spout about why you do what you do.

There is also a great deal of evidence that in addition to Russia causing the refugee crisis by murdering people in Syria, it is also publishing false articles in social media platforms throughout Europe --- claiming that Muslim refugees are committing all sorts of crimes. ...

He who is without sin an' all that.

Russia is also supporting far right political parties that are opposed to helping the refugees. ...

You mean like America?

So, not only is Russia murdering people, causing them to flee Syria, but Russia is also actively interfering with humanitarian aid efforts to help the refugees. That's a sick, criminal act, and it is being done by Russia, not by the USA. The fact the people who claim to be so concerned about Syria voice no condemnation against Russia, but ridiculously claim that the fault all lies with the USA, shows that these people are merely bigots against the USA and are completely unconcerned about assisting anyone in Syria. ...

And yet all of this started with the US covertly funding and arming the insurrectionists?

Too bad for the bigots that people can easily look up the real facts and people do not need to believe in overly simplistic and fantastically unfounded bigotry against the USA, or other nations, like Israel. From what I see, most people who are bigots against the USA are also bigots against Israel and Jews. Social media may be a safe-haven for bigots, but, hopefully this will change in the future, as people become more interested in real factual analysis of political situations, and discard the childish displays of bigotry on social media. Hopefully.

Hopefully you might like these facts - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... propaganda

[attofishpi]

So, not only is Russia murdering people, causing them to flee Syria, but Russia is also actively interfering with humanitarian aid efforts to help the refugees. That's a sick, criminal act, and it is being done by Russia, not by the USA. The fact the people who claim to be so concerned about Syria voice no condemnation against Russia, but ridiculously claim that the fault all lies with the USA, shows that these people are merely bigots against the USA and are completely unconcerned about assisting anyone in Syria. ...

And yet all of this started with the US covertly funding and arming the insurrectionists?

Good use of the question mark there, because no it didn't. The Syrian people on mass demonstrated that they wanted leadership change. After they begun being slaughtered the US started arming the revolutionaries...now all factions are involved.

[Londoner]

That may be true. But if it is, it's a damning stroke against the awareness of such people. That they would imagine that all beliefs are just "crazies" would suggest that they are not aware of any difference among them, and so irrationally extend from one to the next.

Is it logical to think that because, say Nazism was evil, that the ideology that fought Nazism must equally be evil? How stupid a judgment would that be? Yet I agree with you: people make that mistake all the time with regard to religions.

But it would be illogical to think that because Nazism was evil, everybody opposed to Nazism was good.

Or, in the case of religion, that just because two religions dislike each other, that either one was sane.

Me:
...the closest analogy would be the way we treat smoking! We accept that people do it, we wouldn't actually punish individual smokers, but it is good if society is trying to discourage it. Ditto religion.

Two problems: 1) smoking is known to be toxic -- whether or not "religions" all are is a matter of genuine debate; there are very serious reasons to think some of it is actually very socially beneficial. Some is even potentially true. 2) tolerance of belief (Muslim faith) is exactly what we're advocating here...but not of the IMPOSITION of belief on the public against their wishes (Sharia law).

I'm suggesting that people do not agree with your first point; they are coming to believe that all religions are toxic. And even if they were not toxic, they should be discouraged simply because they are nonsensical.

As just as you argue regarding Muslims, although many religious people are harmless - or even nice - since they are fundamentally irrational they will always be prone to doing crazy things.

Personally, I tend to be sympathetic to religion. I am just pointing out that from what I have observed the arguments used against Islam are being applied to religion generally.

[Londoner]

What's comical are all the bigots who claim to be concerned about the refugee crisis in Syria, while not once writing any condemning comments about Russia. Russia is in Syria, and has been for more than a year, conducting daily bombing runs and brutalizing the people of Syria.

I think the attitude is that the various factions in the civil war in Syria are all being backed by outside powers, so the Russian intervention is not seen as worse than any other. There is also the feeling that Assad may (a) be the best of a bad lot and (b) he is not going to be defeated, so Russian intervention on his side is probably the best way to bring the fighting to an end.

[Seleucus]

Pretty nice short documentary here about the Abbasid's as facilitators of intercultural exchange (especially Greek-Persian who were now united and no longer locked in eternal war). Goes on to explain the rise of the rationalist Mu'tazila, I haven't watched the whole thing yet, continues into a part 2 which presumably will cover the suppression of philosophy and the rise of dogmatism.

On CaspianReport channel on YouTube,

"Science in Islam, Part 1: Free will "

[Arising_uk]

Good use of the question mark there, because no it didn't. The Syrian people on mass demonstrated that they wanted leadership change. After they begun being slaughtered the US started arming the revolutionaries...now all factions are involved.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... propaganda