"I don't think it is right to equate Islam with violence"

[thedoc]

Yep, two individuals, workin' together, can do marvelous things.

And that's the problem with Muslims, they want to come in and insist that everyone do things their way, they have no tolerance for anyone else's ideas.

[henry quirk]

Seems to me that's a common feature of all fanatical groups. Name any (religious or political) and such groups try, or have tried, to put a boot down on people's necks.

As I say upthread, Islam is gutter crap born of garbage, but it's merely the motivator for a whole whack of loons. Some how eradicate Islam and some other crackpot manure will take its place.

In other words, ways of thinkin' come and go, but loons are forever.

So: rub out the loons (when they look to start layin' boots to necks).

[Immanuel Can]

Seems to me that's a common feature of all fanatical groups. Name any (religious or political) and such groups try, or have tried, to put a boot down on people's necks.

As I say upthread, Islam is gutter crap born of garbage, but it's merely the motivator for a whole whack of loons. Some how eradicate Islam and some other crackpot manure will take its place.

In other words, ways of thinkin' come and go, but loons are forever.

So: rub out the loons (when they look to start layin' boots to necks).

I suppose.

But there's a danger in saying that Islamists are "just loons." Its that we can assume that they are:

a) so irrational as to be unable to calculate or plan deeply, and so are always going to be at a strategic disadvantage relative to us,

b) a temporary "lunatic fringe," such that all we have to do is sort of "wait them out" and inevitably sweet reason (always on our side), the allurements of Western prosperity, or social evolution will inevitably induce all non-lunatic Islamists over to our view (and the rest we can lock up, presumably), and

c) unlikely to remain a cohesive group (lunatics are notoriously individualistic), and so will dissolve of their own incoherence with time.

I don't think that recent history has given us encouragement to believe either a), b) or c).

[henry quirk]

Fanatics (a kind of loon) can be smart, intricate, and dedicated. They generally are happy to submit to the movement, work tirelessly in its favor, and can be quite clear in their thinkin' ('cept as it relates to the movement, faith, party, etc.).

And, not every muslim is a loon. Even garbage like islam can be interpreted in a reformed or moderate way (by those inclined to do so).

So, leave the thought policin' to progressives and just kill the motherfuckers.

[Arising_uk]

And that's the problem with Muslims, they want to come in and insist that everyone do things their way, they have no tolerance for anyone else's ideas.

Doesn't seem to be the experience in the UK?

It's also the only theist religion that appears to explicitly say that when living in another country one should abide by its laws?

[thedoc]

And that's the problem with Muslims, they want to come in and insist that everyone do things their way, they have no tolerance for anyone else's ideas.

Doesn't seem to be the experience in the UK?

It's also the only theist religion that appears to explicitly say that when living in another country one should abide by its laws?

Christianity states that, even if most "Christians" don't abide by that statement, and Muslims will abide by the "Law-of-the-land" until they can take over and impose Sharia as the "Law-of-the-land".

[Arising_uk]

Christianity states that, even if most "Christians" don't abide by that statement, and Muslims will abide by the "Law-of-the-land" until they can take over and impose Sharia as the "Law-of-the-land".

There are different strands in Islam just like Christianity about how to approach the end-of-times that both believe in, i.e. both think the world will be under heavenly rule and their religion in the future, one under the second coming the other under the caliph. Me, I think both are a nightmare.

[thedoc]

Christianity states that, even if most "Christians" don't abide by that statement, and Muslims will abide by the "Law-of-the-land" until they can take over and impose Sharia as the "Law-of-the-land".

There are different strands in Islam just like Christianity about how to approach the end-of-times that both believe in, i.e. both think the world will be under heavenly rule and their religion in the future, one under the second coming the other under the caliph. Me, I think both are a nightmare.

Agreed, I believe the "end-of-times" prophesy is more about an individual death, than the whole world coming to an end.

[Immanuel Can]

Agreed, I believe the "end-of-times" prophesy is more about an individual death, than the whole world coming to an end.

The problem is not so much one's take on end-times prophecy -- not even whether one thinks it's personal, collective or literal and global. Any of the above will be fine, so long as they are expressions of belief in what will just happen in the future of its own momentum.

The problem is with those death-cults that think it's their job to make it happen. Unfortunately, Islam is one of those.

[Dalek Prime]

I doubt there's any evidence to show that nihilists commit suicide any more than religionists.

I don't think they keep records of that sort of thing. It would be difficult to take a poll.

I just looked up the meaning of Nihilism and found that for the most part I am a Nihilist. I do not believe life has any objective meaning or purpose. I also believe that morals are derived from interaction with society and there are no objective values. I also find that the synonym for nihilism is pessimism which I find puzzling. I am not a pessimist. I do believe that most people have common sense and that makes them capable of understanding what works in society and to behave that way. I also don't understand what the correlation is between life having no meaning or purpose and pessimism. What is the big deal if life has no meaning/ purpose? The fact is we are alive and have two choices. Either whine about it or enjoy it the best that we can. The reality will never change. I choose the latter. Also the fact that people who believe life has a meaning and purpose never seem to find it but still seem to be happy in their own way. Some believe life has a meaning and purpose and never find it. I believe life has no meaning and purpose and don't look for it. What is the difference?

That's my problem with Camus. Without meaning, existence is absurd. He knew that. But he then said celebrate it. Which is fine, since he was stuck here anyways. But then he created two new minds that would have to push the boulder up the hill, repeatedly, ala Sisyphus, with no point to it. It's fine to make the most out of what you have, but what's the point in making something else do it, when they never had to? (The Buddha did the exact same thing, btw. Hence my criticism of him as well as Camus. Two men who knew exactly how silly life is, and yet perpetuated the problem instead of resolving it.)

[ken]

The problem is with those death-cults that think it's their job to make it happen. Unfortunately, Islam is one of those.

If a person kills others in the name of christ, or because God told that person to do it, then does that make christianity, itself, one of those "dealth-cults" also? As I have stated previously if islam is such a "death-cult" as you love to believe it is, then there are over 1.5 Billion followers of islam who are NOT doing their "job" properly.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The problem is with those death-cults that think it's their job to make it happen. Unfortunately, Islam is one of those.

All Messianic religions are death cults. There is no need to offer the numerous examples; mostly from the USA, but once you really accept god and the promise of salvation death is the logical conclusion and answer to all things.
True Christians just can't wait for the Rapture.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I don't think they keep records of that sort of thing. It would be difficult to take a poll.

I just looked up the meaning of Nihilism and found that for the most part I am a Nihilist. I do not believe life has any objective meaning or purpose. I also believe that morals are derived from interaction with society and there are no objective values. I also find that the synonym for nihilism is pessimism which I find puzzling. I am not a pessimist. I do believe that most people have common sense and that makes them capable of understanding what works in society and to behave that way. I also don't understand what the correlation is between life having no meaning or purpose and pessimism. What is the big deal if life has no meaning/ purpose? The fact is we are alive and have two choices. Either whine about it or enjoy it the best that we can. The reality will never change. I choose the latter. Also the fact that people who believe life has a meaning and purpose never seem to find it but still seem to be happy in their own way. Some believe life has a meaning and purpose and never find it. I believe life has no meaning and purpose and don't look for it. What is the difference?

That's my problem with Camus. Without meaning, existence is absurd. He knew that. But he then said celebrate it. Which is fine, since he was stuck here anyways. But then he created two new minds that would have to push the boulder up the hill, repeatedly, ala Sisyphus, with no point to it. It's fine to make the most out of what you have, but what's the point in making something else do it, when they never had to? (The Buddha did the exact same thing, btw. Hence my criticism of him as well as Camus. Two men who knew exactly how silly life is, and yet perpetuated the problem instead of resolving it.)

The absurdity of life is the only really good way of living it without guilt; freely and openly. He was dead right. You ought to take heed.
Besides being an antinatalist, you don't seem to have the balls to actually live life.

[Dontaskme]

Is l am

[Immanuel Can]

If a person kills others in the name of christ, or because God told that person to do it, then does that make christianity, itself, one of those "dealth-cults" also?

Of course not. Only if the belief system itself advocated that would we be wise to blame the ideology. We can hold an ideology responsible for what people do in obedience to it; we cannot hold any ideology responsible for what is done in disobedience to its precepts -- even by people who (inauthentically) invoke the name of the belief as warrant. That would be unjust.

A belief has to warrant the behaviour before we can blame it.

Islam does.