Will islam be the death of us all?

[ggcarl]

I read an worrisome article (http://www.msnbc.com/news/888057.asp?0cv=CB10) on the MSNBC web site. Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak thinks that there will be 100 Bin Ladens if the war in Iraq becomes drawn out. The article goes on to cite muslim uprisings against the war in Egypt and other countries, most notably Indonesia.

If the war in Iraq becomes longer than expected, and even if it doesn't, can the world expect more problems from the muslims? Will the muslims just go after the throats of American/British/Israeli infidels, or are they intent on world domination?

I haven't seen many, if any, muslims stand up post 9/11 and condemn islamic extremists. Is it that the media hasn't shown them, or is it that there haven't been many? Do we have anything to fear from the muslims?

Damn -- religion. :(

It might be if sufficiently provoked by people who do not understand why it hates them.

This isn't just about Islam. It is about Arab nationalism and hatred for America because of Israel.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
It might be if sufficiently provoked by people who do not understand why it hates them.
heh. Which people are you referring to? The Muslims or the Americans? Seems like neither one truely understand why the other is upset with them.
This isn't just about Islam. It is about Arab nationalism and hatred for America because of Israel.
It's a very complex issue. After 9/11, I started reading about the issue to try to get my head around it. I don't think I've ever gotten a straight account of the whole thing. Everyone seems to have their own take and perspective on it.

I'm not sure who is in the wrong and who is in the right, if anyone.

Originally posted by Upchurch

heh. Which people are you referring to? The Muslims or the Americans? Seems like neither one truely understand why the other is upset with them.


The muslims and arabs are trying to make the Americans upset as possible.


It's a very complex issue. After 9/11, I started reading about the issue to try to get my head around it. I don't think I've ever gotten a straight account of the whole thing. Everyone seems to have their own take and perspective on it.

I'm not sure who is in the wrong and who is in the right, if anyone.


American evangelical capitalism is the diametric opposite of fundamentalist islam. Neither are right or wrong. They are extremes, and extremes tend to cancel each other out.

Money is the ultimate expression of materialism. It represents material. America is the glorification of everything Islam teaches is evil. Islam teaches total surrender to the will of God and the collective aims of Islam. America teaches that the pursuit of money and the rights of the individual are to be highly desirable.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


American evangelical capitalism is the diametric opposite of fundamentalist islam. Neither are right or wrong. They are extremes, and extremes tend to cancel each other out.

Money is the ultimate expression of materialism. It represents material. America is the glorification of everything Islam teaches is evil. Islam teaches total surrender to the will of God and the collective aims of Islam. America teaches that the pursuit of money and the rights of the individual are to be highly desirable.

The alleged polarity between the positions as you have stated them is hardly symmetrical. The Islamic fundamentalists who wish to see the destruction of Western culture (not just American, UCE--it just happens to be the most prominent modern symbol of Western civilization) and its values erroneously believe that satan is behind the Western "message" of evil. That is merely their own subjective interpretation of why Western culture exists and what must be done about it in order to appease a demanding and angry Allah.

The truth is that modern Western culture arose independent of and irrespective of Islamic fundamentalist beliefs. It is manifestly not the aim or purpose of Western culture and its values to destory Islam or to antagonize it. Any perceived antagonism towards Islam is merely an effect of it, rather than its deliberate goal or aim.

Also, Western culture does not hold as one of its core tenets that Islamic fundamentalist culture must be extinguished. Perhaps today and in the foreseeable future that may indeed become one of its important tenets--and indeed as a defense and self-preservation tactic perhaps it should be. This, however, is merely a reaction to the manifest threat militant Islamic fundamentalism poses to the peace and security of modern Western civilization. The demonstrated commitment among so many of its followers to terrorism and suicide missions of indiscriminate murder provoke prudent Westerners to strike back.

You have the cause and effect exactly backwards. This is one illustration of how wrong leftist European thinking can be vis-a-vis "American imperialism." You wish to demonize the victims of hatred, rather than place the blame squarely where it belongs--on the shoulders of the zealots who stir up such hatred and disregard for human life in Islamic fundamentalist circles.

Stop blaming the objects of the hatred for the hatred itself and the harm which stems from it.

AS

[justsaygnosis]

Fanatical zealots of the (fill in the blank) religious persuasion have a mandate from their prophets that they are to be the heirs of the new earth after all the sinners, infidels, unrighteous and (fill in the blank) have perished at the hand of (fill in the blank).


Does anyone here remember the movie 'The King of Hearts'?

----
Damn -- religion. :(
----


LOL. Islam is not all religion. Terrorists who happen to follow a perversion of a peaceful religion (Islam) do not represent the religious population.

Also, Americans prolong the war, and somehow it gets blamed on the Muslims over there?

[evildave]

Well, it's certain this sort of "Islam" will be the death of a lot of Islamic people, "perverted" or otherwise, one way or another.

[Yahzi]

AS
Also, Western culture does not hold as one of its core tenets that Islamic fundamentalist culture must be extinguished
I disagree. I think that the culture of the Enlightenment must destroy, or at least subjugate, the culture of Faith.

Extinguished is a difficult word. There is an important sense in which the Enlightenment has not extinguished Christian culture, and then there is an important sense in which it has. We still have the Christian faith, but it doesn't permeate and dominate our culture like it used to.

I think we can all agree that Christianity is subjugated to the Enlightenment (i.e. secular rationalist capitalism). I think the Islamic world does not wish to be subjugated to reason - if Islam were treated around the world exactly as Christianity is treated in the West, the Islamicists would be even more unhappy than they are now.

If we treat them exactly the way we want to be treated, they will hate us with an all consuming, murderous passion. I don't think that is a stable living arrangement.

We are trying to do to Islam what we did to Xianity, and Islam is resisting it with exactly the same amount of blood and violence that Xianity resisted it. Actually, to be perfectly honest: probably less violence per capita.

Originally posted by evildave
Well, it's certain this sort of "Islam" will be the death of a lot of Islamic people, "perverted" or otherwise, one way or another.


Then I am justified in saying that the sort of atheism communists believed was one of the leaded causes of deaths, perverted or otherwise.

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


The alleged polarity between the positions as you have stated them is hardly symmetrical. The Islamic fundamentalists who wish to see the destruction of Western culture (not just American, UCE--it just happens to be the most prominent modern symbol of Western civilization) and its values erroneously believe that satan is behind the Western "message" of evil. That is merely their own subjective interpretation of why Western culture exists and what must be done about it in order to appease a demanding and angry Allah.

The truth is that modern Western culture arose independent of and irrespective of Islamic fundamentalist beliefs. It is manifestly not the aim or purpose of Western culture and its values to destory Islam or to antagonize it. Any perceived antagonism towards Islam is merely an effect of it, rather than its deliberate goal or aim.

Also, Western culture does not hold as one of its core tenets that Islamic fundamentalist culture must be extinguished. Perhaps today and in the foreseeable future that may indeed become one of its important tenets--and indeed as a defense and self-preservation tactic perhaps it should be. This, however, is merely a reaction to the manifest threat militant Islamic fundamentalism poses to the peace and security of modern Western civilization. The demonstrated commitment among so many of its followers to terrorism and suicide missions of indiscriminate murder provoke prudent Westerners to strike back.

You have the cause and effect exactly backwards. This is one illustration of how wrong leftist European thinking can be vis-a-vis "American imperialism." You wish to demonize the victims of hatred, rather than place the blame squarely where it belongs--on the shoulders of the zealots who stir up such hatred and disregard for human life in Islamic fundamentalist circles.

Stop blaming the objects of the hatred for the hatred itself and the harm which stems from it.

AS

You are obviously reading something into my post that I did not write. I didn't say anything about cause and effect or which way around it might be. I just said these things were extremes. But I'm certainly not going to accept any "America-the-victim" theory.

[UnrepentantSinner]

It could be nostalgia and that I lived in Iran as a boy, but the atagonistic stance the President and his hawks are taking with them is going to result in a lost chance, not only for reproachment, but eventual restored relations.

The kids, who comprise the majority of the Iranian population are sick of the Revolution, sick of the oppression and sick of a crappy economy because of a system disasterously run by mullahs and not beaurocrats, technocrats and businessmen.

It's just a matter of time and some engagement on our part before we cound find 60 million Iranians wanting to have the finer things in life that freedom bring like Volkswagens and Sony stereos.

[ggcarl]

I agree that islam is not representative of all religion. I also agree that islamic extremists do not represent all of islam. World history shows us that much exploitation and destruction has been done in the name of religion, while perhaps they were just after the money and power and were using religion as a convenient reason.

So am I to think that the islamic extremists are just using their religion as a way to get money and power, and they've propagandized the islamic people into believing the whole thing is about religion? Or is the conflict truly religious based?

If it truly is islamic civilization vs. western civilization, and both cannot exist simultaneously without conflict, how should things go from here? What would be the preferred outcome given the current state of affairs?

[MRC_Hans]

100 Bin Ladens?? Fine! They'll be so busy fighting each other that they wont have time to bother us.

Hans

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

Well, it's certain this sort of "Islam" will be the death of a lot of Islamic people, "perverted" or otherwise, one way or another.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then I am justified in saying that the sort of atheism communists believed was one of the leaded causes of deaths, perverted or otherwise.

Except that the atheism had nothing at all to do with it. One does not have to be an atheist to be a communist, or vice-versa. The fact that some Communist leaders have chosen to endorse atheism, simply to eliminate the competition that religion would give to their own domination, hardly stands as an indictment of atheism. If you want to blame communism for things like Stalin's brutal reign of terror, then fine. But how can you blame atheism for it, when atheism was not even presented by him as his reason for doing it?

I do not know of any examples of anybody citing atheism as there reason for killing somebody. Do you? Instead you keep pointing out examples of people who were atheists killing people, and blaming it on atheism.

On the other hand, I can point out a lot of examples of people citing their religion as their reason for killing people. You can argue that it wasn't really their reason, and in some cases it probably wasn't. But in many cases it quite clearly was.

Do you really not see the difference?

Dr. Stupid

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Do you really not see the difference?


Not while he and like minded individuals consider it an "effective tool of debate."

Of course none of the "atheist skeptics are moral degenerates" crowd responded to my morality and TAM thread in the TAM forum. A piece of me wants to give them the benifit of the doubt that they don't hit that forum, but I can't help but deny the facts.

250 skeptics and athiests gathered in one place and not even one single reported complaint of a stolen towel.

Please Whodini, Hammedgk, etc. if you have direct evidence of atheists of the kind populating this fourm "acting badly" post it.

I await your silence and/or tangental arguments...

Oh, and John Edward is the real deal!!!!

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Except that the atheism had nothing at all to do with it. One does not have to be an atheist to be a communist, or vice-versa. The fact that some Communist leaders have chosen to endorse atheism, simply to eliminate the competition that religion would give to their own domination, [...]

Although Marx was emphatically atheist; he wrote that:
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. "


However saying that, communism bears as much resemblance to Marx's writings as the King James translation of the bible bears to the original texts.

Edited for grammar and spelling

----
but I can't help but deny the facts.
----


Atheist skeptics are very good at denying.


----
250 skeptics and athiests gathered in one place and not even one single reported complaint of a stolen towel.
----


So? Thousands of people gather in religious meetings with no ill consequences.

----
Except that the atheism had nothing at all to do with it.
----


Once you are out of the denial stage, please let us know.


----
The fact that some Communist leaders have chosen to endorse atheism, simply to eliminate the competition that religion would give to their own domination,
----


By your own admission atheism DID have something to do with it then!


----
But how can you blame atheism for it, when atheism was not even presented by him as his reason for doing it?
----


Atheism was the engine.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by UnperentantSinger


250 skeptics and athiests gathered in one place and not even one single reported complaint of a stolen towel.

Please Whodini, Hammegk, etc. if you have direct evidence of atheists of the kind populating this forum "acting badly" post it.



You feel all the atheists here should be obviously-immoral degenerates, or are just waiting their chance to start a movement that kills hundreds of millions, and 250 who don't meet either criteria proves some point you are trying to make?

Goodo, kiddo! ROTFL.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by hammegk


You feel all the atheists here should be obviously-immoral degenerates, or are just waiting their chance to start a movement that kills hundreds of millions, and 250 who don't meet either criteria proves some point you are trying to make?

Goodo, kiddo! ROTFL.

I accept your concession that I'm correct then.

Thanks! :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
but I can't help but deny the facts.
----


Atheist skeptics are very good at denying.


----
250 skeptics and athiests gathered in one place and not even one single reported complaint of a stolen towel.
----


So? Thousands of people gather in religious meetings with no ill consequences.

Anecdote and Non Sequitor. The issue at hand is how you seem to think atheism causes malicious and immoral behavior.

You even state it above - "Atheism was the engine."

And when I present evidence that flies in the face of that you toss out well religious people blah blah. Of course my easy response would be - well, yeah, but thousands of religous people gather and ill consequences do happen.

But that's only an anecdote and bad logic. So why are you tossing out the same. Please address that lack of malicious and immoral behavior at The Amazing Meeting.

I find it stange that I never argue that Saddam is a brutal thug because of Islam or that Calvin's Geneva was murderous due to Christianity. Both were due to the fact that the men in charge we "me'ists" Picking and choosing a handful of figures from history who had brutal muderous regimes does not sully an entire body of thought.

----
You even state it above - "Atheism was the engine."
----


Ah, but it was not I who stated that first. I read, and I got that off of a freethinkers essay on atheism. Most scholars disagree with you.

Disagreement in the ranks of atheism? I'd have never imagined, with such a perfect system (the "cure" for religious evils) afterall...


----
Please address that lack of malicious and immoral behavior at The Amazing Meeting.
----


Define moral.

Maybe something did happen and you didn't see it.

It wasn't exactly a huge media event, so many people weren't exposed to the details of what went on.

Most people that went were members of JREF (and/or board members), friends of Randi, or members of skeptical organizations. People of the same groups will most often not be malicious towards each other.

And as far as what to address, you aren't even making a point. Please address that lack of malicious and immoral behavior at the last religious meeting I went to.


Can you address the significant lack of minorities and women at the meeting?


----
Both were due to the fact that the men in charge we "me'ists" Picking and choosing a handful of figures from history who had brutal muderous regimes does not sully an entire body of thought.
----


Certainly not, I agree, but it doesn't put those bodies of thought in high regard. Best to disclose all information. If some murdering sicko held atheism in the highest regards, I want to know about it.

[Shroud of Akron]

let's compile a list of who has killed in the name of atheism and religion, get a body count, and compare the 2. that should settle the debate.

for the record, communists killed religious leaders, not religious followers. this was done to put all power in the hands of the government. they killed in the name of the "people" not atheism. ever notice that the dali lama is in exile, while there are a whole lot of religious activities still going on in tibet? i think that the athiest chinese government would have killed off the rest of the worshipers if they were killing for the atheist cause.

----
let's compile a list of who has killed in the name of atheism and religion, get a body count, and compare the 2. that should settle the debate.
----


Oh, it has been done, and more were killed from atheism. But you forget, they killed in the name of communism. Atheism was simply the main engine.


----
i think that the athiest chinese government would have killed off the rest of the worshipers if they were killing for the atheist cause.
----


Are you for real? They did kill a lot of believers.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Whew!

I just reread the thread and realized I was heading down the old ad nauseum path that Whodini takes so many on. Time to get off this merry go round.

Did you used post to Yahoo as oneplusone_51?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

Except that the atheism had nothing at all to do with it.
----

Once you are out of the denial stage, please let us know.

OK, smart ass. What did it have to do with it? Can you name anybody who has ever cited atheism as their reason for killing or oppressing somebody?

The fact that some Communist leaders have chosen to endorse atheism, simply to eliminate the competition that religion would give to their own domination,
----

By your own admission atheism DID have something to do with it then!

How so? I don't follow your reasoning here at all. Stalin eliminated Theism because he saw it as competition. How does that make atheism his reason for doing what he did?

But how can you blame atheism for it, when atheism was not even presented by him as his reason for doing it?
----

Atheism was the engine.

What does that mean? How was it the engine? What are you saying?

Atheism is just the absence of theism. How can that be the engine for anything?

People act on their beliefs, not their lack of beliefs. Saying that Stalin killed people because he was an atheist, is like saying that Osama Bin Laden killed people because he was not a Hindu.

Ah Hell, what's the point? It's painfully obvious that Whodini is not interested in a discussion on this topic. He just likes slamming atheists.

Damn trolls...

Dr. Stupid

[Shroud of Akron]

i have one more comment before i abandon this futile argument. a religious person can kill for themselves, or their god. an atheist can kill for themselves, or themselves. i am an agnostic, so i don't know who i kill for, therefore i claim insanity as my defense.