Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:You know i know you are deluded as all atheists unfortunately are. ...

I know you think this but I also know that you hear a voice in your head..

Where else is one to hear a voice than in ones head?

Arising_uk wrote:You can dress it up all you like but post promotes the fear of the alien within our midst and that behavior promotes hatred. What happened to love thy neighbour?

Love thy neighbour is what stems from Christianity and has fed our Western acceptance of others. Fear of an ideology that promotes conversion or submission as an alternative to death is wise.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Anyone that opens debate about Islam is tarnished a 'hater' a 'racist' (lol) a 'bigot'...

You are the short - sighted one as 'racist' is an incorrect term to use here and I did not use it.

Hence the 'lol' i placed in my statement.

Arising_uk wrote:Bigot seems apt and the reason why is you are not opening up a debate as if you were you'd have asked "Is it possible for Islam to co-exist with other religions?', 'Is it possible for other religions to live within Islam?', etc. Instead you've already decided and in that decision have decided that not only is it not possible but have made the blanket statement that ALL of Islam is radical.

Its called making a statement to argue upon.
You cannot label me a bigot based on three words, 'Islam IS radical.' since i am open for debate on my belief. A bigot is someone who is prejudiced AND who is intolerant of any opinions different from their own.

Arising_uk wrote:You also counterposed Christianity as an exemplar of good behaviour.

I never brought 'Christianity' into the debate but i did state in some way that a TRUE Christian is someone who believes in Christ and adheres to HIS message.
This is important since my claim that Islam IS radical relies upon establishing that Mohammad as the instigator of a murderous violent doctrine clearly expressed in the Koran, proposed a radical intolerant ideology to what we in the West enjoy and should find abhorrent.

Arising_uk wrote:Now I pointed out to you that historically and currently what you say is false upon both issues but I also agreed that it may well be the case that Islam may be become a threatening force to my nation but, and this was my main point, your 'debate" is exactly what is not needed as it tries to tar all the moderate Muslims in my country with the same brush as the fundamentalists and this is playing into their hands as this is exactly the response they want from you.

No, this debate is needed. Muslims are people and people on the whole are wonderful entities. The fire that will engulf us - ignorance - needs to be extinguished regarding the fact that what these GOOD people are subscribed to is a dark ideology.

Arising_uk wrote:You also promoted a bunch of inflammatory myths about Muslims in my country which clearly shows your agenda.

Where?

Arising_uk wrote:Not least because if you did believe them then the solution is clear, have more babies.

NO! This planet is overpopulated as it is.
What were the stats for the UK birthrate? - 1.3 non Muslim, 8.1 Muslim. Mohammad the most common name for children in the UK.

Arising_uk wrote:The fact that you ignore all of this proves my point about your 'debate' and your thoughts I think.

I've ignored nothing. You are the one that is ignorant to the real question within this debate, you just attempt to pollute it with your biased sense of history, blaming pretty much all abhorrent significant events in Europes past on Christian ideals - which clearly they are not.

attofishpi wrote: Love thy neighbour is what stems from Christianity and has fed our Western acceptance of others.

On a scale of 1-10 how would you rate the west's acceptance of "others" in today's cultural zeitgeist? It seems to me that those who live in glass houses.....

attofishpi wrote:a TRUE Christian is someone who believes in Christ and adheres to HIS message.

This is an obvious "true Scotsman" fallacy but your other logical flaw is the more significant one. Your eponymous "true" Christian can only adhere to Christ's message in accordance with the interpretation of this message by Christ's messenger, and Christ's messenger is anybody who appoints himself as such and can then get people to believe his particular interpretation.

Obvious Leo wrote:

attofishpi wrote: Love thy neighbour is what stems from Christianity and has fed our Western acceptance of others.

On a scale of 1-10 how would you rate the west's acceptance of "others" in today's cultural zeitgeist? It seems to me that those who live in glass houses.....

Very high.

Obvious Leo wrote:

attofishpi wrote:a TRUE Christian is someone who believes in Christ and adheres to HIS message.

This is an obvious "true Scotsman" fallacy but your other logical flaw is the more significant one. Your eponymous "true" Christian can only adhere to Christ's message in accordance with the interpretation of this message by Christ's messenger, and Christ's messenger is anybody who appoints himself as such and can then get people to believe his particular interpretation.

Not so. Although i appreciate it is important to consider for the sake of the argument (Islam IS radical), a comparison to other religions, Christs message was merely contained in the Gospels, not from some drunk Scotsman claiming to be Christ's messenger. Therefore if you atheists insist on bringing Christianity into the debate, then compare the teachings contained within the Gospels to the teachings of Mohammad within the Koran and consider which is radical in comparison to the freedoms we currently enjoy.

attofishpi wrote: Christs message was merely contained in the Gospels,

The Gospels were written by human propagandists many decades after Christ's death and have been doctored by many after-market revisionists for two thousand years since. I hope you don't propose to offer these tainted documents as "evidence" because they contain at least one outright falsehood. Christ would never EVER have claimed to be the son of god. This claim was clearly made on his behalf after his gruesome execution because he was executed by the Romans and not by the Jews. Religious heresy was a crime under Jewish law but it was not a crime under Roman law and the Romans would therefore have denied jurisdiction in this case. They were very scrupulous about such administrative matters and they NEVER interfered in the religious affairs of their subject populations. Crucifixion was also not a common form of execution under Roman law, being specifically reserved for those convicted of inciting civil unrest. Under Jewish law Christ would have been stoned ( and I don't mean offered a soothing joint of quality home-grown).

attofishpi wrote: compare the teachings contained within the Gospels to the teachings of Mohammad within the Koran

Mahommed did not write the Koran because he could neither read nor write. The official story is that he recited it for others to write down word for word and we are free to draw our own conclusions about the plausibility of this tale.

Obvious Leo wrote:

attofishpi wrote: Christs message was merely contained in the Gospels,

The Gospels were written by human propagandists many decades after Christ's death and have been doctored by many after-market revisionists for two thousand years since. I hope you don't propose to offer these tainted documents as "evidence" because they contain at least one outright falsehood. Christ would never EVER have claimed to be the son of god. This claim was clearly made on his behalf after his gruesome execution because he was executed by the Romans and not by the Jews. Religious heresy was a crime under Jewish law but it was not a crime under Roman law and the Romans would therefore have denied jurisdiction in this case. They were very scrupulous about such administrative matters and they NEVER interfered in the religious affairs of their subject populations. Crucifixion was also not a common form of execution under Roman law, being specifically reserved for those convicted of inciting civil unrest. Under Jewish law Christ would have been stoned ( and I don't mean offered a soothing joint of quality home-grown).

And there goes the atheist with the age old atheist story re Christ.
Im not going to be drawn into a debate over the legitimacy of the Gospels here, you are fully aware that Christianity is based upon the Gospels of the new Testament - whether they are legitimate or not.
Address my point that the teachings of Mohammad contained within the Koran, IS radical compared to the teachings within the Gospels and indeed our lifestyle we now enjoy in the west.

attofishpi wrote:Address my point that the teachings of Mohammad contained within the Koran, IS radical compared to the teachings within the Gospels

I agree that some of the teachings of the Koran are open to interpretation in the radical light you're suggesting but you're missing my counter point. The motivation for this interpretation is a political one and not a religious one, just as the execution of Christ was carried out for political reasons and not for religious reasons. How long do you reckon it would take for the Christian message to be re-written if we decided to follow Christ's example and kick the money-lenders out of the temple, bearing in mind that this was the capital offence for which he was convicted?

the reason Orkney islands (sorts of half way between shetland islands and faroe islands) are muslim is that calif of norway gave the a choice to convert or die

typical evil muslims

Prepare to be raped, and then blamed.

“A political scandal is developing in Germany as ordinary citizens wake up to the scale of the migrant crime cover-up, and the callous reaction of the mayor of Cologne to mass-sex crime on new year’s eve.”

German folks pretty much have the right to rely on the good intentions of attackers when it comes to self-defense, don’t they.

Obvious Leo wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Address my point that the teachings of Mohammad contained within the Koran, IS radical compared to the teachings within the Gospels

I agree that some of the teachings of the Koran are open to interpretation in the radical light you're suggesting

Good, a 'prophet' of God stating in many ways killing and converting and subjugating is only open to one interpretation, argument won.

Obvious Leo wrote:..but you're missing my counter point. The motivation for this interpretation is a political one and not a religious one, just as the execution of Christ was carried out for political reasons and not for religious reasons. How long do you reckon it would take for the Christian message to be re-written if we decided to follow Christ's example and kick the money-lenders out of the temple, bearing in mind that this was the capital offence for which he was convicted?

Whether Christ parked his flying saucer in Pontious Pilates spot and Pilate decided to crucify Christ for his infringement is irrelevant.
You persist in wanting to bring Christianity into the debate which is ok, but Christianity draws its inspiration from Christs life contained within the Gospels. Islam draws its inspiration from the Koran and instruction from Mohammad. The latter message contained within the Koran, is radical in comparison to the freedoms that we in the West enjoy and is also radical to the message that Christ espoused in the Gospels.

"Violent Muslim riots broke out yesterday across India because it is alleged that someone insulted Muhammad. Whether it happened or not is of little import. Just the rumor is enough. Time to crack heads, chop limbs and destroy towns and villages. And even if Moe was insulted, so what? Instead of condemning and denouncing such barbaric madness, political and media elites tell us we to respect the hair-trigger sensitivity in the Muslim world."

- Pam Geller

Phuck that respect.

I'm an equal opportunity non-believer and thus hold all religious belief in the highest of contempt. Countless billions of human lives have been needlessly wasted in the cause of the beatification of ignorance and to find one such beatification more blameworthy than another is exactly what religious belief is specifically designed to do. It was invented as a tool of oppression and it's still fulfilling its objective admirably so humanity is simply getting its just desserts. Praise the lord and pass the joint.

Walker wrote:"Violent Muslim riots broke out yesterday across India because it is alleged that someone insulted Muhammad. Whether it happened or not is of little import. Just the rumor is enough. Time to crack heads, chop limbs and destroy towns and villages. And even if Moe was insulted, so what? Instead of condemning and denouncing such barbaric madness, political and media elites tell us we to respect the hair-trigger sensitivity in the Muslim.

Phuck that respect.

Oh please! You're talking about India. Religious riots by Hindus and Muslims are ten a penny there.

Arising_uk wrote:

Walker wrote:"Violent Muslim riots broke out yesterday across India because it is alleged that someone insulted Muhammad. Whether it happened or not is of little import. Just the rumor is enough. Time to crack heads, chop limbs and destroy towns and villages. And even if Moe was insulted, so what? Instead of condemning and denouncing such barbaric madness, political and media elites tell us we to respect the hair-trigger sensitivity in the Muslim.

Phuck that respect.

Oh please! You're talking about India. Religious riots by Hindus and Muslims are ten a penny there.

Whew. That’s a relief. Though we do have connections there through connections. There is that.

Obvious Leo wrote:...humanity is simply getting its just desserts. Praise the lord and pass the joint.

You bet! More pregnant Muslims about to deliver more reward than is just.