So the atheist "movement"...

[Tree]

Ok, so you don't agree. I imagine that executions for heresy in the past to jailing homosexuals for life today do not qualify as crimes since they have the force of law behind them but are you disagreeing with the perpretators of attacks on homoesexuals and abortion clinic bombers? There are numerous that claim to be acting as dictated by their faith.

They can "claim" whatever they want. Doesn't make it true.

By the way, to put things into perspective, a total of 11 people have died in the entire HISTORY of abortion clinic attacks inside the US and even fewer attacks internationally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States

Only someone who completely lacks reason, has no nuance, no ability to find patterns etc would think this a problem on equal footing with Islamic terrorism which has killed orders of magnitude more people and is even powerful enough to destabilize certain governments around the world.

So what you said about Muslims is that "regular Muslims bear responsability for the actions of the extremists Muslims because they're perpetuating an ideology that instigates some Muslims to commit crimes", that ideology being Islam.

I don't think our understanding of "regular" is the same.

Regular just means the majority. What do the majority of Muslims subscribe to? Overwhelmingly Sunni Islam (somewhere in the 80-90% range) followed by Shi'ite Islam (and a tiny percentage of the rest). Both promote violence and theocracy and whether you're practicing or non-practicing doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me since ignorance doesn't fully absolve anyone of responsibility for the choices they make. If you pledge your support for bad ideas, nobody is obligated to like you.

Would you be okay with "moderate" Nazis? Plenty of Nazis don't actually advocate National Socialism and probably don't even understand what it is, they're just brainwashed edgy teens who think swastikas are cool.

Why shouldn't "regular Christians bear responsability for the actions of the extremists Christians because they're perpetuating an ideology that instigates some Christians to commit crimes", that ideology being Christianity?

"Regular" Christians are Catholics, Protestants of multiple stripes (not really any central doctrine since protestants are really just people who "protested" against certain aspects of Catholicism and went their own way, did their own thing, but very few would qualify as violent cults) and followed by a pretty sizeable portion of Eastern Orthodox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members

They're only responsible for what their particular denomination advocates and as far as I can tell, that does NOT include warfare against unbelievers or a theocracy except for a few Protestant cults and lone wolves. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are more centralized and certainly their ideology doesn't advocate that or if it ever did, they renounced those values.

So if you're part of those cults that have a clear violent message, I have no problem with saying, yes, you're responsible to a degree if you remain in that cult and the cult does something bad. You are judged by the company you keep.

So to answer the question above, it's because... the violence Christianiy instigates... is an irregular form of christianity?
While the violence instigated by Islam is the regular form of it?

Why does that shock you?

Religions are not equal and I have no idea what theological dunce decided this was a good assumption to make. Different doctrines, different outcomes. You can't say that because religion 1 is this then all religions are like it.

So we're to conclude that Western Christianity today is the regular form while the Christianity that burned people at the stake or the Christianity that jails homosexuals for life are irregular forms?

You would have to conclude that given that it's not really a matter of debate.

Oh and only the Catholic Church did that for a time. They changed now. What more do you want them to do? They're not doing that, they're not advocating that and the people who actually did it are long dead.

I would have no problem with Sunni Islam reforming too, but it hasn't. The same shit they preached 300 years ago they preach AND practice today, at least when they can get away with it and there's not a dictator or whatever keeping the most violent aspects of Sharia in check. Isn't it strange how all the apparent secular or "more" secular Muslim countries have a history of either communism, ba'athist ideology or some other form of past secular dictatorship?

And we're also to conclude that Muslims that live their day to day lives without hurting anybody, nor having the intent to, are subscribing the irregular form?

Again, that's not even up for debate since 80-90% subscribe to Sunnism which is violent.

If they don't like it maybe they should either make a new denomination that isn't violent or become apostates? Just a thought. It's a choice, not something you're born with or can't change, so change it. We aren't obliged to put our trust into people that either support our enslavement or are too ignorant or indifferent to know or care what they're supporting.

Would you be okay with people promoting bad fire safety books and would you accept ignorance as a good excuse for doing so?

 

[Sparhafoc]

It's like an extended case study in motivated reasoning.

 

[MarsCydonia]

There's a lot of questions that were left out, disappointing but not truly surprising. Still, I have more questions

They can "claim" whatever they want. Doesn't make it true.

So just to make sure:
- Extremist claiming to be inspired by Islam: if this is what they say, it must certainly be true
- Extremist claiming to be inspired by Christianity: they can claim whatever they want but that doesn't make it true

Is that how it works? But how does that work?
How do you determine which one is lying when they say they're inspired by their faith? Why would they lie in such a manner? Is it only the self-proclaimed Christians extremists that lie or are there self-proclaimed Muslims extremists that are lying too?

By the way, to put things into perspective, a total of 11 people have died in the entire HISTORY of abortion clinic attacks inside the US and even fewer attacks internationally.

To put things into perpespective, shouldn't we count the total of people who been have killed by actions inspired by Christianity? Isn't that the bar you use for Islam? You certainly do not limit yourself to the people that died in abortion clinic attacks perpetrated by muslims.

Only someone who completely lacks reason, has no nuance, no ability to find patterns etc would think this a problem on equal footing with Islamic terrorism which has killed orders of magnitude more people and is even powerful enough to destabilize certain governments around the world.

The current problems with Islam do not equate the current problems with Christianity.

But since I was discussing about how responsability should be borne, should I consider the above to be your answer?

"Every Muslims bear responsability for the actions of the extremists because they're perpetuating an ideology that instigates some Muslims to commit crime and that ideology is currently a bigger problem than Christianity"

While

"Every Christians bear NO responsability for the actions of the extremists because they're perpetuating an ideology that instigates some Christians to commit crime and that ideology is not currently a bigger problem than Islam"

If this isn't the answer, why bring up that current problems with Christianity do not equal current problems with Islam? What was the point?

I don't think our understanding of "regular" is the same.

Regular just means the majority. What do the majority of Muslims subscribe to? Overwhelmingly Sunni Islam (somewhere in the 80-90% range) followed by Shi'ite Islam (and a tiny percentage of the rest). Both promote violence and theocracy and whether you're practicing or non-practicing doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me since ignorance doesn't fully absolve anyone of responsibility for the choices they make. If you pledge your support for bad ideas, nobody is obligated to like you.

Well that is certainly true but I believe that our different understanding is partly because your understanding of "regular" changes depending on whether you're discussing Christianity or Islam:
"Regular just means the majority. What do the majority of Christians subscribe to? Overwhelmingly Catholocism (somewhere in the 50% range) followed by Protestantism (and a tiny percentage of the rest). Both include the Old Testament where homosexuals are to be put to death, women are to be submissive, slavery is condoned, etc. and whether you're practicing or non-practicing doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me since ignorance doesn't fully absolve anyone of responsibility for the choices they make. If you pledge your support for bad ideas, nobody is obligated to like you."

If the quoted part of your comment applies to Muslims and the responsability they bear for the extremists inspired by Islam, why doesn't the above apply to Christians and the responsability they bear for the extremists inspired by Christianity?

Again, Islam's extremists are currently more numerous than Christianity's so do not try to say that the numbers of extremists are being treated as equal, but I do want to know how it is determined that one group bears responsability and the other doesn't.

Would you be okay with "moderate" Nazis? Plenty of Nazis don't actually advocate National Socialism and probably don't even understand what it is, they're just brainwashed edgy teens who think swastikas are cool.

What does that have to do with the price of fish?

"Regular" Christians are Catholics, Protestants of multiple stripes (not really any central doctrine since protestants are really just people who "protested" against certain aspects of Catholicism and went their own way, did their own thing, but very few would qualify as violent cults) and followed by a pretty sizeable portion of Eastern Orthodox.

They're only responsible for what their particular denomination advocates and as far as I can tell, that does NOT include warfare against unbelievers or a theocracy except for a few Protestant cults and lone wolves. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are more centralized and certainly their ideology doesn't advocate that or if it ever did, they renounced those values.

So if you're part of those cults that have a clear violent message, I have no problem with saying, yes, you're responsible to a degree if you remain in that cult and the cult does something bad. You are judged by the company you keep.

So if a Catholic, inspired by his faith, commits a crime then all Catholic should bear responsability because they're perpetuating an ideology that instigated a Catholic to commit a crime?

Or would they escape responsability because your position is no longer what the crimes the religion instigates but what the religion outright advocates?

Well, they would escape responsability for certain crimes. If they were to execute an homosexual, as Uganda planned before the international backlash, then certainly they would bear responsability then?

Certainly many Christians believe their religion demands it and from your comment above and from what I'll quote below, the issue isn't how the adherents practice their faith, it's about what the faith outright advocates.

You would have to conclude that given that it's not really a matter of debate.

Oh and only the Catholic Church did that for a time. They changed now. What more do you want them to do? They're not doing that, they're not advocating that and the people who actually did it are long dead.

"It isn't really a matter of debate" doesn't explain how that what was settled.

Because at your insistance, the Muslims that are not doing 'that", that are not advocating "that", whether or not they actually are a majority, bear the responsability for those that do.

"Sunni Islam advocates violence so it doesn't matter if the majority of its practioners doesn't.
While the majority of Christians do not advocate violence so it doesn't matter if the religion does"

See what I meant but your apparently changing understanding of "regular"? It certainly isn't what the majority of Muslims practices.

Also to your error because the people who actually did it are not "long dead" (I did mention Uganda), shouldn't you want them to do the exact same thing you're demanding Muslims do?

Again, that's not even up for debate since 80-90% subscribe to Sunnism which is violent.

If they don't like it maybe they should either make a new denomination that isn't violent or become apostates? Just a thought. It's a choice, not something you're born with or can't change, so change it. We aren't obliged to put our trust into people that either support our enslavement or are too ignorant or indifferent to know or care what they're supporting.

Do they not necessarily need to make a new denomination or become apostate? They could ignore or rationalize away the violent passages, reject and denounce those who commit violence, etc.

Catholicism did. Protestantism did too.


So I'm still left with unanswered questions, particularly the one I've been asking since the beginning:
If "the majority of Muslims, which are non-violent, bear responsability for the actions of the extremists because they're perpetuating an ideology that instigates the extremists to commit their act"
Why don't "the majority of Christians, which are non-violent, bear responsability for the actions of the extremists because they're perpetuating an ideology that instigates the extremists to commit their act"?

Is your answer truly "because the acts of one are not as numerous/problematic as the acts of the other"?

 

[Tree]

You'll have to start posing questions that aren't loaded if you want more answers. There are lots of assumptions built into your questions that I don't believe are accurate.

- Extremist claiming to be inspired by Islam: if this is what they say, it must certainly be true
- Extremist claiming to be inspired by Christianity: they can claim whatever they want but that doesn't make it true

Is that how it works? But how does that work?

It works based on whether or not the ideology in question actually advocates to do the things that you're doing.

Maybe there's a degree or subjectivity here, but you can't just make shit up completely out of thin air. Someone who rapes kittens and says "I did it because my belief in democracy tells me so" is not making a coherent point at all. There's nothing in the democratic doctrine saying you have to rape kittens.

How do you determine which one is lying when they say they're inspired by their faith? Why would they lie in such a manner? Is it only the self-proclaimed Christians extremists that lie or are there self-proclaimed Muslims extremists that are lying too?

You got consult their stated doctrine, their theology that is in this case.

Extremist anything is a misleading choice of words because it's relative to the ideology. An extremist Christian should not be assumed to be interchangeable with an extremist Muslim, just like they're not interchangeable with extremist Jainists, extremist libertarians, extremist whatever.

Take an extremist Jainist for instance. They're not going to blow you up, they're preoccupation is going out of their way to ensure they don't step on bugs.

An extremist Christian will likely be preachy as fuck rather than a threat to your safety.

If this isn't the answer, why bring up that current problems with Christianity do not equal current problems with Islam? What was the point?

I don't respond to loaded questions.

Christians are only responsible for the things their doctrine advocates to do. None of those things include fighting unbelievers or having a theocracy except for a few very specific and very fringe cults, while theocracy and violence are inherent to Islamic doctrines.

"Regular just means the majority. What do the majority of Christians subscribe to? Overwhelmingly Catholocism (somewhere in the 50% range) followed by Protestantism (and a tiny percentage of the rest). Both include the Old Testament where homosexuals are to be put to death,

That would be part of the Old Covenant aka the Mosaic Covenant.

If you knew anything about Catholic doctrine or for that matter most Protestant doctrines, you'd know it's not their view that the Mosaic Covenant applies fully in our time. The distinction is made between moral, judicial and ceremonial laws with only the moral component being mandatory.

women are to be submissive

That I'll grant you, it's kinda sexist, but that alone is not an act of aggression.

If you want to argue that Christians bear some responsibility for the sexism done as a result of Christian attitudes about women, yeah, you can do that. I think there are bigger fish to fry like war and actual theocracy - where there's no choice to opt out. If someone's being a sexist, you can just choose to not talk to them.

slavery is condoned

Both denominations reject slavery and even if they were okay with slavery, acquiring new slaves is basically impossible without violating other Christian religious tenets like not coveting or stealing.

If the quoted part of your comment applies to Muslims and the responsability they bear for the extremists inspired by Islam, why doesn't the above apply to Christians and the responsability they bear for the extremists inspired by Christianity?

It does in theory but the hidden implication that Christianity advocates the same things Islam does is retarded and wrong. The implication that all extremists of all ideologies behave the same is also wrong. Since different religions have different tenets, taking those tenets to the "extreme" is not going to produce equal outcomes.
I'll say it once again, don't throw loaded questions around.

So if a Catholic, inspired by his faith, commits a crime then all Catholic should bear responsability because they're perpetuating an ideology that instigated a Catholic to commit a crime?

"Commanded", not inspired. I rarely care what stuff "inspires" you to do because inspiration is almost completely subjective.

With that in mind please tell me what crimes does Catholicism command?

Let's see a "Catholic extremist", let's see what he did, let's see if those actions are in line with the stuff Vatican says. You need to establish a plausible connection between being Catholic and doing crime.

They still perpetuate the same doctrine that tells those "extremists" what to do.

Do they not necessarily need to make a new denomination or become apostate? They could ignore or rationalize away the violent passages, reject and denounce those who commit violence, etc.

Catholicism did. Protestantism did too.

[/quote]

Okay that's a fair point, but they haven't done that yet and the civilized world doesn't have hundreds of years to wait for Muslims to get their shit together if they ever do.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You'll have to start posing questions that aren't loaded if you want more answers. There are lots of assumptions built into your questions that I don't believe are accurate.

Assumptions built into questions don't make them 'loaded questions'. A loaded question would require you to accept an unjustified assumption regardless of how you responded to that question.

It works based on whether or not the ideology in question actually advocates to do the things that you're doing.

So, for example, when the Bible expressly tells believers to stone to death those who have transgressed against the covenant?

Deuteronomy 17:
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Or when apostasy is punished, the apostate must be put to the sword, while the entire town in which the apostasy occurred should be burned as an offering and remain a ruin forever?

Deuteronomy 13
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.

Or when a woman has tempted a man to apostasy, and the response is to kill all the men, older women, male children and take the female virgins as sex slaves as in Numbers 31?

Maybe there's a degree or subjectivity here,...

A degree of subjectivity? How about the fact that most Christians don't feel they are religiously justified to stone their children for speaking back.... that degree of subjectivity?

Funny how we're only to apply it to Christians though, innit?

but you can't just make shit up completely out of thin air. Someone who rapes kittens and says "I did it because my belief in democracy tells me so" is not making a coherent point at all. There's nothing in the democratic doctrine saying you have to rape kittens.

So like how disobedient, drunkard sons should be put to death by the entire town as in Deuteronomy 21:18-21? Like how that isn't just made up?

How do you determine which one is lying when they say they're inspired by their faith? Why would they lie in such a manner? Is it only the self-proclaimed Christians extremists that lie or are there self-proclaimed Muslims extremists that are lying too?

You got consult their stated doctrine, their theology that is in this case.

So we should consider Christians to be terrorists hell bent on stoning people to death because their doctrine says so?

An extremist Christian will likely be preachy as fuck rather than a threat to your safety.

Or murder you, as per the numerous instances of Christians claiming religious justification for murdering people.

If this isn't the answer, why bring up that current problems with Christianity do not equal current problems with Islam? What was the point?

I don't respond to loaded questions.

Good, but how about you respond to that question which clearly wasn't remotely loaded?

Perhaps next time you can tuck and twist to improve your gymnastics score?

Christians are only responsible for the things their doctrine advocates to do. None of those things include fighting unbelievers or having a theocracy except for a few very specific and very fringe cults, while theocracy and violence are inherent to Islamic doctrines.

And those very specific, fringe cults get their beliefs from?

Yes, doctrine.

That would be part of the Old Covenant aka the Mosaic Covenant.

Otherwise known as 'look over there'.

Is it or is it not in the Bible?

Ergo, if you are being consistent, which you obviously aren't, then it is expressly in their doctrine and no Christian is remotely obliged to consider that Jesus' coming removes any of the laws which they read in their Bible. Exegesis, and all that, you know - the stuff you ignore when it comes to Muslims?

Funny how your argument is exactly the same as you'd get from a Christian!

If you knew anything about Catholic doctrine or for that matter most Protestant doctrines, you'd know it's not their view that the Mosaic Covenant applies fully in our time. The distinction is made between moral, judicial and ceremonial laws with only the moral component being mandatory.

But of course, a Christian can set aside parts of their scripture which are not consonant with their modern beliefs, but we are supposedly obliged to assume that Muslims cannot do this, and that they are all automatons to a single exegesis which just so happens to be the one which violent terrorists employ?

I've seen some motivated reasoning in my time, but this is priceless!

women are to be submissive

That I'll grant you, it's kinda sexist, but that alone is not an act of aggression.

Whereas, Christian Domestic Discipline is an act of aggression.

If you want to argue that Christians bear some responsibility for the sexism done as a result of Christian attitudes about women, yeah, you can do that. I think there are bigger fish to fry like war and actual theocracy...

Because we can only talk about one thing, not the other... for some undisclosed reason beyond it being convenient.

If someone's being a sexist, you can just choose to not talk to them.

Yeah, victims of domestic abuse - it's your choice!

Both denominations reject slavery and even if they were okay with slavery, acquiring new slaves is basically impossible without violating other Christian religious tenets like not coveting or stealing.

You're going to need to see a chiropractor after all this extended gymnastics of a decidedly Christian format!

Slavery is repeatedly condoned throughout the Bible, and the justification for the transatlantic slave trade was always religious.

If the quoted part of your comment applies to Muslims and the responsability they bear for the extremists inspired by Islam, why doesn't the above apply to Christians and the responsability they bear for the extremists inspired by Christianity?

It does in theory but the hidden implication that Christianity advocates the same things Islam does is retarded and wrong.

Except that's just your typical well poisoning with no merit to it.

I'll say it once again, don't throw loaded questions around.

You can say it until you're blue in the face, but it still remains an evasion on your part. Learn what the term actually means.

So if a Catholic, inspired by his faith, commits a crime then all Catholic should bear responsability because they're perpetuating an ideology that instigated a Catholic to commit a crime?

"Commanded", not inspired. I rarely care what stuff "inspires" you to do because inspiration is almost completely subjective.

Here, I'll help you: If a Catholic believes that doctrine commands him to commit what is seen by contemporary society as a crime, then all Catholics should bear responsibility because they're perpetuating an ideology that instigated a Catholic to commit a crime?

You're welcome.

Let's see a "Catholic extremist", let's see what he did, let's see if those actions are in line with the stuff Vatican says. You need to establish a plausible connection between being Catholic and doing crime.

What you actually need to do is listen to how he justifies his crime and whether he perceives it as being required by his religious belief as seen in scripture.

But, when another person from that denomination refuses to follow the same exegesis, you don't claim that he is guilty of the crime too when he a) hasn't committed a crime and b) rejects the justification for that crime. You know, like you are trying to do with all Muslims.

Do they not necessarily need to make a new denomination or become apostate? They could ignore or rationalize away the violent passages, reject and denounce those who commit violence, etc.

Catholicism did. Protestantism did too.

Okay that's a fair point, but they haven't done that yet and the civilized world doesn't have hundreds of years to wait for Muslims to get their shit together if they ever do.

Yeah, I mean it's not like hundreds of Islamic organisations repeatedly criticize and reject acts done in the name of their shared religious beliefs as being heinous to them and, in their opinions, in contradiction to their stated scriptural obligations or anything.

No, when a Christian commits a crime, it's complex, we need to look at the individual and his thoughts, see him as distinct from the greater body of believers.

But when a Muslim commits a crime, well, it's simple isn't it because those foreign types are all the same, and they're all guilty of the crimes committed by people in the name of their religion, even when they believe their own religion prohibits murder under any circumstances.

There is one rule for our own, and quite another for the other.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Let's just run the cognitive bias program again...

https://www.babble.com/mom/to-train-up-a-child-teaches-punishment-that-kills-kids/

...To Train Up A Child, a parenting guide used by some evangelical Christians to teach their children complete obedience.

To Train Up A Child advocates the use of severe corporal punishment and even starvation as a means of training children to be wholly submissive.

In the last seven years, the deaths of three children – all adopted – have been attributed to use of the Pearls’ book. 4-year-old Sean Paddock was killed by his adoptive mother Lynn Paddock in 2006, 7-year-old Lydia Schatz was killed by her adoptive parents Kevin and Elizabeth in 2010, and 13-year-old Hana Williams was killed by her adoptive parents Larry and Carri in 2011. In all three cases, the parents were convicted of murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Lydia_Schatz

Lydia Charity Schatz was a 7-year-old American child of Liberian origins who was killed in 2010 by her adoptive parents in an attempt to discipline her.[1][2]

On February 5, 2010, Lydia received forceful and numerous whippings with a quarter-inch plastic tubing. She was held down for nine hours by Elizabeth and beaten dozens of times by Kevin on the back of her body, causing massive tissue damage according to Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey. She was being disciplined for apparently mispronouncing a word.[4][6] She died in hospital on February 6, 2010.[8] Her sister Zariah, 11 years old, was also beaten for "being a liar and a bad influence on the 7-year-old."[6] Zariah was hospitalized in critical condition with severe injuries but she survived.[2][5][7]
Trial

Kevin Schatz was found guilty of second degree murder and torture and will serve at least 22 years of imprisonment from two life sentences. Elizabeth Schatz was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and infliction of unlawful corporal punishment and will serve at least 13 years of imprisonment.[9][10]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/followers-of-christ-idaho-religious-sect-child-mortality-refusing-medical-help

The Followers of Christ is a religious sect that preaches faith healing in states such as Idaho, which offers a faith-based shield for felony crimes – despite alarming child mortality rates among these groups

Mariah is 20 but she’s frail and permanently disabled. She has pulmonary hypertension and when she’s not bedridden, she has to carry an oxygen tank that allows her to breathe. At times, she has had screws in her bones to anchor her breathing device. She may soon have no option for a cure except a heart and lung transplant – an extremely risky procedure.

All this could have been prevented in her infancy by closing a small congenital hole in her heart. It could even have been successfully treated in later years, before irreversible damage was done. But Mariah’s parents were fundamentalist Mormons who went off the grid in northern Idaho in the 1990s and refused to take their children to doctors, believing that illnesses could be healed through faith and the power of prayer.

https://nypost.com/2015/10/16/son-beaten-to-death-because-he-wanted-to-leave-the-church/

A couple belonging to a cult-like Christian church brutally beat their older son to death during a “counseling session” over his desire to split from the insular fold, authorities said Friday.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/christian-extremism-witch_b_154685.html

In Akwa Ibom State, the center of the Nigerian child witch hysteria, the State Governor, Chief Godswill Akpabio, lamented:

The church will torture children and some of the churches will pretend to use oil to try and remove witchcraft from a child. So far we have we have 165 children some of them are not up to 9 months old who have been thrown away by their parents because the church said those children will bring them misfortune.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/21faith.html

WESTON, Wis. — Kara Neumann, 11, had grown so weak that she could not walk or speak. Her parents, who believe that God alone has the ability to heal the sick, prayed for her recovery but did not take her to a doctor.

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/parents-newborn-jaundice

A Lansing, Michigan couple has been charged with involuntary manslaughter for refusing medical treatment for their newborn daughter.

The Lansing State Journal reports that the couple, 30-year-old Rachel Joy Piland, and her husband, 36-year-old Joshua Barry Piland were both aware of their child’s condition of jaundice. However, the mother still refused to seek medical assistance when a midwife explained that the condition could lead to brain damage or death.

According to Detective Peter Scaccia, the mother reportedly told the midwife that her baby, Abigail, was fine and that “God … makes no mistakes.”

On February 8, two days after the midwife’s warning, Abigail Piland died.

So, if we were to consistently apply Tree's supposedly reasonable argument about how we should consider all Muslims a real and present threat due to the actions of a violent minority, then shouldn't we also consider all Christians a real and present threat to the welfare of children?

Would anyone argue that Christians are child-murderers because a subset of Christians murder or allow their children to die?

I submit that would be utter fucking crackpottery - clearly dopey beyond measure, without an ounce of fucking sense, and would need to be motivated by a combination of ignorance and prejudice.

In a reasonable world, we don't collectively blame innocent people because some fruitcakes in their nominal group commit crimes. That's nuts. Fortunately, most people's critical thinking faculties are sufficiently developed to preclude them from engaging in such asinine wet-wankery.

 

[Tree]

Because a few anecdotes of idiot Christians who aren't even following any standard Christian theology is on par with a global terrorist network acting on the doctrine of jihad + a multitude of Islam countries governed by Sharia law as mandated by both Sunni and Shi'ite doctrine which make up the bulk of the Islamic world.

What a sad pathetic excuse of human being you are Sparhafoc.

I know we're not religious, but why do you need to lie and imply that an anti-modern medicine position is something widely promoted in Christian theology? It's not.

So, if we were to consistently apply Tree's supposedly reasonable argument about how we should consider all Muslims a real and present threat due to the actions of a violent minority

NOT due to the actions of a violent minority, but due to their chosen doctrine. Someone who pledges their allegiance to a violent ideology is not someone I can trust.

Stop being dishonest and acknowledge my actual position.

I submit that would be utter fucking crackpottery - clearly dopey beyond measure, without an ounce of fucking sense, and would need to be motivated by a combination of ignorance and prejudice.

I'm not ignorant of Islam's command to make war on non-Muslims and subjugate them as dhimmis, nor am I prejudiced. Prejudice means to PRE-judge.

Well, let's just that if I'm prejudiced against Muslims, by the exact same standard you are prejudiced against "white supremacist neo-Nazism".

Why are you a bigot against white supremacist neo-Nazis? Most of them are "peaceful". Only a minority are actually violent. Same shit you argue I can argue back.


What exactly do you hope to accomplish by bringing up Christianity? It won't make me more lenient towards Islam, it won't change my view that Islam is a bad ideology that should have been discarded long ago and mass immigration from Muslim countries is bad for Europe, the best you can accomplish is that you'll make me despise Christianity. Why are you pursuing this pointless route with someone who isn't even religious to begin with?

In a reasonable world, we don't collectively blame innocent people because some fruitcakes in their nominal group commit crimes.

I'm not collectively blaming them, I'm individually blaming them for following and perpetuating a violent ideology.

Just because there are many of them, doesn't mean they're being judged collectively. A bad choice can be pursued by multiple people.

Why are you collectively judging all white supremacist neo-Nazis? Shame shit, different ideology.

then shouldn't we also consider all Christians a real and present threat to the welfare of children?

Sure.

Pick your favorite major Christian denomination, pick Catholic, pick whatever has a good following enough to make a global impact and show me where it says in their theology that using modern medicine is sinful.

I'm waiting, clown, but I won't hold my breath.

What you actually need to do is listen to how he justifies his crime and whether he perceives it as being required by his religious belief as seen in scripture.

But, when another person from that denomination refuses to follow the same exegesis, you don't claim that he is guilty of the crime too when he a) hasn't committed a crime and b) rejects the justification for that crime. You know, like you are trying to do with all Muslims.

Catholicism is not scripture alone. It's scripture + interpretation by various theologians and approved by the Vatican basically. Your understanding of the Old Testament is not in line with theirs, in fact almost every Christian faction rejects your caricature interpretation of the mosaic covenant.

If at present these things contain instigation to harmful acts, then I would have no issue with criticizing Catholics for following Catholicism.

Are they calling for the subjugation of non-Catholics or non-Christians? No.

Are they calling for theocracy? No.

No, when a Christian commits a crime, it's complex, we need to look at the individual and his thoughts, see him as distinct from the greater body of believers.

Fool.

There are plenty of crimes Muslims commit that I'm perfectly fine with saying have nothing to do with Islam or other Muslims.

I'm not saying Muslims are responsible for Muslim financial fraudsters and thieves, that literally has nothing to do with Islam, but they are in part to blame for jihad attacks and theocratic regimes based on Sharia law. That's their belief system in action.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Because a few anecdotes....

News reports of actual events become anecdotes in the never-ending march of cognitive bias to justify inane attacks on one of the numerous groups Tree joined this site to express his hatred and fear of!

... of idiot Christians who aren't even following any standard Christian theology

Of course, Tree is the ultimate arbiter of the One True Christian, just as he is the ultimate arbiter of the One True Muslim. So when a Christian engages in heinous acts because they believe their scripture justifies it, they're wrong - it's not their real religion. But when a Muslim rejects terrorism and violence because they believe their scripture doesn't justify that, they're wrong - their real religion is violent.

How simple the world is when you dictate it.

... is on par with a global terrorist network acting on the doctrine of jihad + a multitude of Islam countries governed by Sharia law as mandated by both Sunni and Shi'ite doctrine which make up the bulk of the Islamic world.

On par, because now we're employing some undefined standard which, no doubt, Tree doesn't need to explain but will merely dictate.

What a sad pathetic excuse of human being you are Sparhafoc.

Thanks for reiterating how poor your reasoning skills are that you need to routinely employ ad hominem arguments in place of reasoned ones. Of course, some may well say that condemning all members of a group because of the actions of a minority of that group indicates pathetic reasoning competence unmitigated by human qualities like compassion, empathy, and critical thinking.

I know we're not religious, but why do you need to lie and imply that an anti-modern medicine position is something widely promoted in Christian theology? It's not.

Who is 'we'?

I'm not religious, but if you think I believe your bullshit, you must be dafter than you appear. You're a concern troll, Tree. It was apparent within your first dozen posts.

Of course, if someone were to challenge you to show where I claimed 'anti-modern medicine is something widely promoted in Christian theology' you wouldn't be able to validate that asinine assertion because, as usual, you feel the need to make up both sides of the argument, presumably to make up for the fact that you lack the competence to process or argue either side of the argument.

So, if we were to consistently apply Tree's supposedly reasonable argument about how we should consider all Muslims a real and present threat due to the actions of a violent minority

NOT due to the actions of a violent minority, but due to their chosen doctrine. Someone who pledges their allegiance to a violent ideology is not someone I can trust.

Like Christianity?

Oh wait, no... different standards are being applied between 'us' and 'them'.

So when a Christian employs their scripture to justify performing a heinous act, Tree dictates that they are not True Christians and explains away their crime. But all Muslims are equally guilty of the crimes of a minority of Muslims because Tree dictates that the minority is rightfully employing their scripture to justify performed heinous acts.

I mean, it's obviously fucking inane enough to be bewildering that someone can possess such a pathetic notion, but to watch someone repeatedly and aggressively argue it on a site dedicated to reason is truly cosmic irony.

Stop being dishonest and acknowledge my actual position.

An accusation of dishonesty from the guy who can't provide any reason as to why his standards are so inconsistent!

I submit that would be utter fucking crackpottery - clearly dopey beyond measure, without an ounce of fucking sense, and would need to be motivated by a combination of ignorance and prejudice.

I'm not ignorant of Islam's command to make war on non-Muslims and subjugate them as dhimmis, nor am I prejudiced. Prejudice means to PRE-judge.

Of course, the notion of 'Islam's command' is about as knowledgeable as the notion of 'Christianity's command', where both would need to pretend that there's only One True version of the belief system.

Well, let's just that if I'm prejudiced against Muslims, by the exact same standard you are prejudiced against "white supremacist neo-Nazism".

Yes, you would say that, wouldn't you? Because your oft-used strategy when caught with your pants down tugging on your tadger is to distract, evade, and sling poo to see if you can obfuscate.

Of course, if you can actually show any standard I've espoused of being prejudiced against white-supremacist neo-Nazis, you might have a point. You can't, of course, because as usual it's your argument you've manufactured for me because you lack the competence to address my own arguments.

Why are you a bigot against white supremacist neo-Nazis? Most of them are "peaceful". Only a minority are actually violent. Same shit you argue I can argue back.

Please do feel free to argue it back - not least because it shows anyone who hasn't yet grasped it exactly what kind of mind we're dealing with here.

What exactly do you hope to accomplish by bringing up Christianity?

Reading and processing my post would furnish you with the answer. What I am doing is showing how your argument is inconsistent, how you apply different standards to analogous situations thereby showing it's not reason motivating your position, but emotion. In this case, the emotion is your latent xenophobia - the same xenophobia that's been at the core of all the numerous posts you've made here mongering fear and hatred of all the groups you're not part of.

Tree, no one here's thick, unfortunately for you. Everyone can see that you came to this website specifically to express your hatred and fear of groups of people. Why you chose a site dedicated to reason reflects how far removed from reality you are.

It won't make me more lenient towards Islam, it won't change my view that Islam is a bad ideology...

:lol:

As if I am under the erroneous notion that anything would make you change your mind. I am not discussing with you, I am smacking your bullshit into the stratosphere and giving you the opportunity to show what a vapid cunt you are.

... that should have been discarded long ago...

Should have, wasn't. Tree's incomprehension of reality not operating according to his internal emotions.

....and mass immigration from Muslim countries is bad for Europe,...

I think we Europeans will be the judge of that, thanks all the same foreigner.

... the best you can accomplish is that you'll make me despise Christianity.

Hardly likely, although I expect there is some degree to which you despise yourself, even if you're good at avoiding it.

Why are you pursuing this pointless route with someone who isn't even religious to begin with?

Well, I am not. I'm pursuing it with you, someone who is religious and who came to a site predominantly inhabited by non-religious to express a slew of hateful bigotry to fish for your reflection.

Of course, i am not really pursuing it with you - I am not actually talking to you, I am talking to anyone else reading this exchange. If my objective was to engage you in reason and change your mind, I think we all know by now that would make me a naive fucking twat, because it's not what you're here for.

.

In a reasonable world, we don't collectively blame innocent people because some fruitcakes in their nominal group commit crimes.

I'm not collectively blaming them, I'm individually blaming them for following and perpetuating a violent ideology.

Which in the adult world of reasoned discourse is known as 'collectively blaming them'.

.Just because there are many of them, doesn't mean they're being judged collectively. A bad choice can be pursued by multiple people.

As usual, you can't even maintain a coherent position across one group of sentences. You are judging them collectively based on their adherence to the religion of Islam, of which you have decreed there is only One True version, that being the one the violent terrorists subscribe to.

So even when a Muslim has never once committed a crime in their lives, and believes that life is sacred, and that they are commanded by Allah never to take a human life in accordance with scripture... you will still pretend they are as guilty of murder as the guy who blows himself up to hurt the heretics.

I don't think it's possible to contrive a more self-defeating argument. But I expect you'll try.

.Why are you collectively judging all white supremacist neo-Nazis? Shame shit, different ideology.

I'm not. You don't get to make up my positions for me. Remember? No? I only told you 4 dozen times!

But again, it provides another example of your refusal to engage reasonably.

.

then shouldn't we also consider all Christians a real and present threat to the welfare of children?

Sure.

Pick your favorite major Christian denomination, pick Catholic, pick whatever has a good following enough to make a global impact and show me where it says in their theology that using modern medicine is sinful.

Why would I need to do that? All I need to do is show that some Christians believe that their scripture tells them that modern medicine is sinful, and that beating children is justified. I am not logically required to show that all Christians believe this, because I am paralleling your argument and therefore if some Christians believe it, then all Christians are guilty of it.

If not, then you've disproved your own argument.

You're not very good at this, are you?

I'm waiting, clown, but I won't hold my breath.

Please do.

.

What you actually need to do is listen to how he justifies his crime and whether he perceives it as being required by his religious belief as seen in scripture.

But, when another person from that denomination refuses to follow the same exegesis, you don't claim that he is guilty of the crime too when he a) hasn't committed a crime and b) rejects the justification for that crime. You know, like you are trying to do with all Muslims.

Catholicism is not scripture alone.

Nor is Islam, thanks for the red herring.

It's scripture + interpretation by various theologians and approved by the Vatican basically.

Islam is scripture + interpretation by local imams. The very nature of Islam is far less monolithic than Catholicism, but you of course treat it as a simple mono-entity. It's convenient to hate when you can push it into a pigeonhole.

Your understanding of the Old Testament is not in line with theirs, in fact almost every Christian faction rejects your caricature interpretation of the mosaic covenant.

Again, you are fundamentally destroying your own argument.

My understanding of the OT is irrelevant. All I need to do to parallel your argument is show that some Christians hold a given belief to perfectly mimic the offal you've been drooling.

As I've said, it's about showing the inconsistency in your argument, what you apply to one you don't apply to the other.

If at present these things contain instigation to harmful acts, then I would have no issue with criticizing Catholics for following Catholicism.

What's relevant is that you don't do that when it comes to Muslims even though huge numbers of Muslims reject violent terrorism, not least because it's they who are the habitual targets of the violent extremists.

Are they calling for the subjugation of non-Catholics or non-Christians? No.

Are they calling for theocracy? No.

Are all Muslims? No.

Thanks for joining me in dismantling your argument.

No, when a Christian commits a crime, it's complex, we need to look at the individual and his thoughts, see him as distinct from the greater body of believers.

Fool.

Public autofellatio.

There are plenty of crimes Muslims commit that I'm perfectly fine with saying have nothing to do with Islam or other Muslims.

Sorry, you must have mistaken me for someone who cares what things you think are fine and dandy.

I'm not saying Muslims are responsible for Muslim financial fraudsters and thieves, that literally has nothing to do with Islam, but they are in part to blame for jihad attacks and theocratic regimes based on Sharia law. That's their belief system in action.

Except, of course, when it's not the belief they hold, when their exegesis of scripture is wholly inconsistent and even in contradiction to that.

Yep, that inconsistency in your standards of evaluation.

I know, let's do this for another 12 pages until you find another group you want to publicly express you fear and hatred of.

 

[Tree]

News reports of actual events become anecdotes in the never-ending march of cognitive bias to justify inane attacks on one of the numerous groups Tree joined this site to express his hatred and fear of!

These "numerous groups" being?

I've explained my position. Normative Christian theology doesn't say modern medicine is sinful or that you must follow the mosaic law given to ancient Israelis, while normative Islamic theology mandates Sharia law and conquest of non-Muslims to get them under Sharia law. Those laws were never meant exclusively for the 7th century and they were never abrogated.

The few idiot Christians that don't give medicine to their kids are not the responsibility of other Christians since they never subscribed to that idea in the first place.

They are also not statistically meaningful enough to warrant that much attention. You can't name a single country where modern medicine is banned because of Christianity (supposedly) while you can find plenty of examples of Sharia run Muslim countries. And the secular ones are only secular due to communism/dictators, not because Islamic theologians decides to reject Sharia.

I can't make this any more clear.

Of course, the notion of 'Islam's command' is about as knowledgeable as the notion of 'Christianity's command', where both would need to pretend that there's only One True version of the belief system.

Yeah, I'm not, I'm simply going by what normative Islamic theology says.

The common forms are Sunni first (80%-90% of all Muslims) and Shi'ite second.

Sunni is split into 4 sub-branches called schools of jurisprudence, Hanafi, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Maliki and are supportive of theocracy under Sharia and that also includes a foreign policy of expanding the Islamic state through conquest and making the non-Muslims dhimmis.

Name me ONE Christian denomination of any significance that says modern medicine is bad and you should have a society run by mosaic law.

Which in the adult world of reasoned discourse is known as 'collectively blaming them'.

No.

If, hypothetically speaking, 1000 people are involved in trolling a kid to suicide online or rob a bank or whatever it is they do, then they're all culpable to a degree. Some will be legally culpable, some only morally (such as the bank employee who didn't follow security procedure allowing the bank to be robbed), but they're definitely not blameless.

That's not collective blame, that's just individual blame to a lot of people because a lot of them were involved.

Maybe the reason you fail to understand that promoting bad ideas, like Islam, makes you responsible for the outcome is because you don't understand that rights come with responsibilities. You literally own the consequences of your choices. Not to do so is nothing short of narcissistic egoism.

Or to put it in other words, your right to flap your arms around ends where my face begins. I can't make this any simpler to a simpleton like you, Sparhafoc, but I expect that you'll continue to lie and demonize me as you always have.

What's relevant is that you don't do that when it comes to Muslims even though huge numbers of Muslims reject violent terrorism, not least because it's they who are the habitual targets of the violent extremists.

On what theological basis do they do this?

Jihad is part of normative Islamic theology, it's not a sin, it's part of the doctrine sadly.

If you're serious about opposing jihad, the best thing you can do if you're Muslim do is leave Islam. Forget about that toxic ideology.

not least because it's they who are the habitual targets of the violent extremists.

If you weren't so damn ignorant you'd realize this is another failure of the Islamic doctrine which commands the killing of apostates. (Note that there's a degree of subjectivity on exactly what qualifies as apostasy.)

That's why there's so much infighting.

Are all Muslims? No.

Thanks for joining me in dismantling your argument.

Muslims subscribe overwhelmingly to Sunni Islam.

If they oppose Sharia then they shouldn't call themselves Sunni.

Ignorance is no excuse to me. We're in the mess we're in precisely because we've allowed so-called "moderate" Muslims to get away with being ignorant and complacent and not take any responsibility for the shit their ideology produces on a daily basis. No more. I'm done.

 

[Tree]

I'm not. You don't get to make up my positions for me. Remember? No? I only told you 4 dozen times!

But again, it provides another example of your refusal to engage reasonably.

How about I start digging up some quotes of yours:

Given that you've suggested you've watching a lot of his videos, I am surprised you've missed the misogynistic schtick. Then again, perhaps he's dropped it in favour of some alt-right bollocks. I was never a listener, but when his vids popped up on my feed years ago, that's when I listened to him ranting his bigotry against women, and that's simultaneously when I stopped listening to him and started considering him a vile cunt.

Are ALL sexists vile cunts?

Why are you bigoted against sexists?

We can play this ridiculous game of "you're a bigot" all day.

Now I haven't actually called Muslims "vile cunts", I prefer to keep my criticism of Islam a bit more constructive than that, but I know you'd be massively triggered if I said that Muslims are vile cunts based on the crap ideology they subscribe to.

What we need to do is counter the trend of alt-right fuckheads being racist and sexist then whining when their behavior is accurately labelled as such. They're not the victims, no matter how much they play the identity politics card or act like snowflakes all upset for their spade being called a spade. The victims are those who are targeted by their sexist and racist bullshit.

Why are you bigoted against the alt-right?

What behavior are you talking about? There are many alt-rightists that don't act on their hatred of black people, so are you fine with them?

What is your standard?

Are you saying ALL white supremacists are responsible for what SOME white supremacists do?

If I claimed to be a white supremacist that only nominally hated black people without acting on it and then claimed "white supremacism is an ideology of peace" or that I'm a "moderate white supremacist", would you think that's acceptable?

That's basically what "moderate" Islam is, a joke. All those vile tenets are still there whether Muslims pratice them or not, same as white supremacy has vile tenets whether white supremacists act on them or not.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I'm not. You don't get to make up my positions for me. Remember? No? I only told you 4 dozen times!

But again, it provides another example of your refusal to engage reasonably.

How about I start digging up some quotes of yours:

Given that you've suggested you've watching a lot of his videos, I am surprised you've missed the misogynistic schtick. Then again, perhaps he's dropped it in favour of some alt-right bollocks. I was never a listener, but when his vids popped up on my feed years ago, that's when I listened to him ranting his bigotry against women, and that's simultaneously when I stopped listening to him and started considering him a vile cunt.

Are ALL sexists vile cunts?

Why are you bigoted against sexists?

So you 'dig up a quote' that has fuck all to do with what you were supposedly arguing.

Yeah, good job. Perhaps try waving your hands even harder - a moron might have stumbled on this site while bashing his head against the keyboard and find your argument convincing.

Perhaps you might want to try not framing my arguments for me as you have shown yourself repeatedly incompetent even at framing your own arguments. You didn't even bother covering up your attempted bait and switch. Where did I say ALL people are ANYTHING? Oh wait, I didn't, you attempted to do so on my behalf. So it's not really analogous to your repeated attempts at criminalizing all Muslims because of the actions of a few, is it? Well, in reality it isn't, but in your febrile mind, who knows?

But it does show that you are aware that you are engaging in bigotry, even if your cognitive dissonance protects you from internalizing it.

We can play this ridiculous game of "you're a bigot" all day.

Not quite: you can play this ridiculous game you've manufactured to evade addressing arguments all day, and you probably will because this is how you protect your cognitive dissonance from reasoned discourse.

Now I haven't actually called Muslims "vile cunts", I prefer to keep my criticism of Islam a bit more constructive than that, but I know you'd be massively triggered if I said that Muslims are vile cunts based on the crap ideology they subscribe to.

Criticism of an individual person is now somehow supposed to be equated to collectivized demonization of 1.7 billion people because Tree 'logic'! :lol:

As for being 'triggered' - it's not me who keeps whining piteously every time his half-baked wankery is challenged.

What we need to do is counter the trend of alt-right fuckheads being racist and sexist then whining when their behavior is accurately labelled as such. They're not the victims, no matter how much they play the identity politics card or act like snowflakes all upset for their spade being called a spade. The victims are those who are targeted by their sexist and racist bullshit.

Why are you bigoted against the alt-right?

I am not bigoted against them - words have meanings, Tree - tossing out these distractions once again shows how you go about avoiding reasoned discourse.

What behavior are you talking about? There are many alt-rightists that don't act on their hatred of black people, so are you fine with them?

Oh wait, you actually expect me to join you in this diversion?

No, sorry.

Back to the spanking of your incessant hate-mongering of Muslims?

What is your standard?

If I claimed to be a white supremacist that only nominally hated black people without acting on it and then claimed "white supremacism is an ideology of peace" or that I'm a "moderate white supremacist", would you think that's acceptable?

Pop your red herring back up your rectum - its natural habitat.

That's basically what "moderate" Islam is, a joke.

Says Tree, whereas in reality it's just a term meant to label the clear distinction between violent religious extremists, and Muslims who don't seek to cause harm or injury to others.

You know, those real people you want to demonize?

All those vile tenets are still there whether Muslims pratice them or not, same as white supremacy has vile tenets whether white supremacists act on them or not.

As they are with Christianity, but of course, you don't have any reason to employ the same standards in criticism of your own - just those foreigners and their foreign ways.

 

[Tree]

I've already explained my position regarding Christianity, if you're not going to engage more honestly, fuck off. I don't care.

I will lose far more sleep over losing 1 match in Counter-Strike than I ever will because a degenerate cunt thinks I'm a bigot cause I don't like an ideology that preaches my subjugation. That's how little I care, pal.

Criticism of an individual person is now somehow supposed to be equated to collectivized demonization of 1.7 billion people because Tree 'logic'!

Right, it wasn't just one individual, you've "demonized" many groups of people including:

1. sexists
2. racists
3. "white supremacist neo-Nazis"
4. the alt-right

I want to know on what basis can you say that everyone in those 4 groups can be judged but

5. Muslims

can't be judged for their ideology?

Explain your thought processes. Why is it not-bigotry to judge the first 4 but bigoted to judge the 5th group?

And since you're a dishonest cunt who will just gaslight again and deny holding the position he actually holds, the question is addressed to anyone else who cares to answer.

Why are white supremacists condemned for their ideology but Muslims get a pass?

Nobody is saying we need to be nice to "moderate white supremacists" just because they're not violently attacking black people and they're "peaceful". You will notice in fact that people who subscribe to these ideologies, even if they're not personally violent, have quietly been driven out of polite society. And actually you don't even need to be a real white supremacist, joking about it is sometimes enough to get a major backlash like Pewdiepie did. Nobody is called a "racistphobe" for opposing them. Nobody is called a "Naziphobe" for opposing Nazism. Nobody is called a "fasciphobe" for opposing fascism. Explain this special pleading.

Says Tree, whereas in reality it's just a term meant to label the clear distinction between violent religious extremists, and Muslims who don't seek to cause harm or injury to others.

You know, those real people you want to demonize?

The same shit can be said about certain white supremacists.

It is entirely possible to hate black people or at least think they're all bad in some way and not "seek to cause harm or injury to others".

But somehow, we're not that lenient to "moderate" racists.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I've already explained my position regarding Christianity, if you're not going to engage more honestly, fuck off. I don't care.

You already evaded the numerous examples of how you apply different standards irrationally, so yeah, I'll fuck off knowing my point has been made to all capable of rational discourse and critical thinking.

I will lose far more sleep over losing 1 match in Counter-Strike...

Probably about the limit of your expertise.

than I ever will because a degenerate cunt thinks I'm a bigot cause I don't like an ideology that preaches my subjugation. That's how little I care, pal.

I have no doubt. However, I will still be here smacking your vapid bullshit into the stratosphere and making you look like a demented chuff-monkey in the process.

Criticism of an individual person is now somehow supposed to be equated to collectivized demonization of 1.7 billion people because Tree 'logic'!

Right, it wasn't just one individual, you've "demonized" many groups of people including:

1. sexists
2. racists
3. "white supremacist neo-Nazis"
4. the alt-right

No I didn't. As usual, you're emoting reality, Tree. You can't support this claim in the slightest, you are just using the Creationist style discursive strategy of bullshit tu quoque. As I've told you many times - I will make my own positions, you won't make them for me. As I've told you many times, this is not only because that's how it works, but also because you have the approximate capacity to formulate my positions of an epileptic hamster.

I want to know on what basis can you say that everyone in those 4 groups can be judged but

You want to know what I think regarding your contrived red herrings and strawmen?

Why don't you just tell me what I think considering the entire position is yours and not mine? You're going to anyway, so I might as well save a little wear-and-tear on my keyboard.

5. Muslims

can't be judged for their ideology?

Well, how about the the fact you've been informed of many times that Islam is not a single ideology? You know, if nothing else there's the bit blowing people up and murdering in the name of their religion, and then there's the majority which aren't doing that.

So perhaps you need to spend a little more effort on establishing why it is that we are supposed to collectivize the blame of a few onto the peaceful many? And while you're at it, try and explain why we shouldn't do that when it comes to Christians.

Explain your thought processes.

I have - read my posts instead of avoiding all the content and calling me names.

Why is it not-bigotry to judge the first 4 but bigoted to judge the 5th group?

I am obviously not going to be misled into your diversion - it's actually you who needs to explain why we shouldn't consider all Christians to be dangerous due to the actions of a few while we should consider all Muslims to be dangerous on the actions of a few.

You know... the actual argument at hand?

Of course, if you can't provide a coherent reason, then fair enough - try diversions; they won't work in the slightest, but it will illuminate for the critical thinkers here exactly what's going on under the hood.

And since you're a dishonest cunt who will just gaslight again and deny holding the position he actually holds, the question is addressed to anyone else who cares to answer.

:lol:

Sweet, sweet irony. You call me a gaslighter while simultaneously trying to claim I hold a position because you decree it so.

It might help if you learned what words meant before tossing them out as smoke-screens.

Why are white supremacists condemned for their ideology but Muslims get a pass?

Why are Christians not condemned for the actions of a few Christians, while Muslims are supposed to be collectively judged according to the actions of a minority?

You can try to address the critical flaw in your argument any time you like, but if cognitive dissonance is getting in the way and red herrings and strawmen are your way of evading addressing the flaw in your reasoning, then please do continue. As I said, we can do this for as many pages as you feel is necessary.

Nobody is saying we need to be nice to "moderate white supremacists" just because they're not violently attacking black people and they're "peaceful". You will notice in fact that people who subscribe to these ideologies, even if they're not personally violent, have quietly been driven out of polite society. And actually you don't even need to be a real white supremacist, joking about it is sometimes enough to get a major backlash like Pewdiepie did. Nobody is called a "racistphobe" for opposing them. Nobody is called a "Naziphobe" for opposing Nazism. Nobody is called a "fasciphobe" for opposing fascism. Explain this special pleading.

Says Tree, whereas in reality it's just a term meant to label the clear distinction between violent religious extremists, and Muslims who don't seek to cause harm or injury to others.

You know, those real people you want to demonize?

The same shit can be said about certain white supremacists.

And of red herrings.

It's like watching a documentary on cognitive dissonance.

It is entirely possible to hate black people or at least think they're all bad in some way and not "seek to cause harm or injury to others".

But somehow, we're not that lenient to "moderate" racists.

 

[Sparhafoc]

And just to regather one of those minor facts that certain parties may be glad to have had fallen off the current page so that they can reinvent their argument to seem more reasonable...


http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15724&p=184199&hilit=+assassin#p184199

And that's only possible because many Muslims are ignorant of what Islam says. For some, it only takes someone pointing out the teachings of Islam to make them theocratic or terrorist. For others who are already closeted radicals, it only takes an opportunity to show it, like having the confidence in the strength of numbers.

...

The idea that I can co-exist with an assassin roommate, I just have to hope he never opens the envelope with instructions to kill me or if he does he never goes through with it (because reasons?), is utterly laughable.

That's actual bigotry, real bigotry, demented bigotry.

Insinuating that all Muslims are secretly out to murder you, and even when they don't appear to be out to murder you, that's even more reason to be afraid of them murdering you!


You wrote this deranged bullshit, Tree. It's not my obligation to forget it, but you can, of course, retract your inane fear-mongering if you want to recoup some shred of rational legitimacy.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Bitching about Muslims appears to be the new Godwin's Law.

Some people will always need a fearsome, evil other to hate, if nothing else than to pretend to themselves that their own lives have meaning.

 

[Wenlok]

As a recent Ex Muslim, i agree, not all Muslims are terroists.

Yet, to get to that conclusion one will have to circumvent the traditional and accurate definition of a muslim. Islamic law and ruling condemns any and all fallower for breaking a certain rule, wheather that be failing to met a certain expectation or refusing to fallow jurisprudence. These and many mire and complex tuling define a muslim, depending on what school of thought that person may adhere to.

But regardless of the school of thought, the sharia, dictates the exact and precise ruling of mulim and non muslim interaction. In that A) A muslim must not befriend a non muslim(Sincerely) B) Must not live in none muslim lands (With certain exceptions like education) C) Must constantly be at war with none muslims except to rest in which lying is permitted. And in all that, non muslims must be considered much less of a human than muslims, must get less rights, and can be killed without ruling if demended necessary by a ruling authority or for breaking the many strict islamic rules.

I can go in and on, but my point is, sure not all people who call themselves muslims arent terroists, but the islami law in which they adhere to doesn’t recognize them as muslims either. Thus negating the appeal. But those like ISIS are considered true muslims for defending islam and killing the non muslims and taking back lands in which they islam calls their own.

All in the name if Allah!

Cheers.

 

[Tree]

You already evaded the numerous examples of how you apply different standards irrationally, so yeah, I'll fuck off knowing my point has been made to all capable of rational discourse and critical thinking.

I'm not applying standards differently, I already explained my position.

Normative Christian theology doesn't promote subjugation of non-believers or a theocratic regime while normative Islamic theology does. Maybe instead of boasting about how "rational" you are just because you joined a forum with "reason" in the title, you should instead spend some time to educate yourself on what the main branches of Islam and Christianity actually teach.

I've also explained that I don't particularly care for your dumbass tu quoque whining about Christianity to begin with. Even assuming for a moment that Christianity is a piece of shit totalitarian ideology that's out to subjugate us, that doesn't justify the mainstreaming of yet another piece of shit totalitarian ideology.

Or to it in more simple terms even though you'll still willfully misconstrue it and claim it's a red herring when it's not, having cancer ain't a good reason to expose yourself to superbugs cause "fuck it I'm already sick".

So let's assume that Christianity is the scourge of the west, it's evil, it's theocratic, it's the reason we don't have colonies on Mars, it's the reason kids don't get medicine, it did 9/11 and invented AIDS and MRSA and it peed on your computer and poked holes in your condoms, you name it.

Still not a good reason to welcome Islam into the west and allow it to reach the mainstream status that Christianity has. It's probably a good reason NOT to welcome Islam so we don't have to deal with 2 crappy ideologies at the same time. One pile of crap - easier to handle than 2.


What's worse than an arrogant person or a stupid person?

Answer: Sparhafoc, an arrogant AND stupid person, the worst combination

 

[Sparhafoc]

I'm not applying standards differently, I already explained my position.

Yes.

And both myself and others have shown why your position is comprised of conflicting standards applied unequally. Your explanation is logically inconsistent, glaringly so. Your failure to address that is why you're flailing at me.

Normative Christian theology doesn't promote subjugation of non-believers or a theocratic regime while normative Islamic theology does.

Again, no it does not. Again, there is not one single Islam, any more than there is one single Christianity. Again, just as a Christian can look at the passage in the Bible about stoning to death a child that speaks back and somehow contrives a cognitive dissonance to overcome it because of a tradition of belief within which that action doesn't fit, so a Muslim can look at a verse about Mo's justification for warring and contrive a cognitive dissonance to overcome it because of a tradition of belief within which that action doesn't fit.

Maybe instead of boasting about how "rational" you are just because you joined a forum with "reason" in the title, you should instead spend some time to educate yourself on what the main branches of Islam and Christianity actually teach.

What's amusing about this is how you, typically, don't fucking comprehend anything.

At no point have I boasted about being rational. Quite the contrary, I've pointed out with great detail how you are irrational.

As for your appeal to authority, I am afraid you haven't shown the slightest expertise in the matter, and I won't be taking your claimed authority as adjudication.

I've also explained that I don't particularly care for your dumbass tu quoque whining about Christianity to begin with.

:lol:

Firstly, it's funny how you simply parrot criticisms without actually acknowledging your error that spawned that criticism in the first place.

Secondly, it's funny how you toss out terms that you clearly don't grasp because you're misusing them..

Thirdly, if you got over yourself for just a moment, you might learn something rather than continually acting like a spoiled little brat. It's very telling how you can't maintain a civil dialogue with someone, and you need to continuously abuse them in place of making coherent arguments.

Finally, it's not a tu quoque, you clueless numpty - at best, it would be a red herring, but of course, it's not. In reality, it's actually a perfectly valid way of showing that you do not apply the same standards to the same scenarios, meaning that the motivation for your arguments isn't reason or rationality, but something else. That something else is pretty fucking clear to everyone on this forum, I would imagine. As anyone can see, I have said that I don't apply these standards to Christians which is consistent because I don't apply them to Muslims, however, you selectively apply your 'standards'.

Even assuming for a moment that Christianity is a piece of shit totalitarian ideology that's out to subjugate us,...

An ideology can't subjugate anyone, people subjugate people.

... that doesn't justify the mainstreaming of yet another piece of shit totalitarian ideology.

What are you fucking wittering about? Islam is already 'mainstream' - it's been around for a millennia. As I've told you before, if we simplistically divide Islam into 2 categories: the violent extremists Muslims and the Muslims who aren't violent extremists - which one is preferable to us? It's really that simple. I couldn't care less what scriptural gymnastics a Muslim needs to perform in order to not agree with violent extremist Muslims - their form of belief is infinitely preferable, and consequently, I am not going to join in with numpties like you trying to tell them that they should be like the violent extremists. This is equally true of Christians - some Christians may consider themselves justified in beating children, and even if their reading of scripture seems more literal, I simply do not care. Those Christians who reject it are the ones I'd prefer were mainstream. They're still 'wrong' in the sense of their beliefs are founded on bullshit, but the outcomes of their beliefs are not of concern to me because they're not hurting anyone but themselves.

Or to it in more simple terms even though you'll still willfully misconstrue it and claim it's a red herring when it's not, having cancer ain't a good reason to expose yourself to superbugs cause "fuck it I'm already sick".

It's a red herring.

When you contrive these analogies, perhaps they work in your addled brain, but in reality they have fuck all to do with anything. However, it's indicative of the nastiness motivating you that you repeatedly need to employ analogies about cancer and the like when talking about a group of people.

So let's assume that Christianity is the scourge of the west, it's evil, it's theocratic, it's the reason we don't have colonies on Mars, it's the reason kids don't get medicine, it did 9/11 and invented AIDS and MRSA and it peed on your computer and poked holes in your condoms, you name it.

Still not a good reason to welcome Islam into the west and allow it to reach the mainstream status that Christianity has. It's probably a good reason NOT to welcome Islam so we don't have to deal with 2 crappy ideologies at the same time. One pile of crap - easier to handle than 2.

Whereas, of course this isn't an argument being made, it's you contriving an argument for me.

In reality, the argument you are making is that we should see all Muslims as a real and present danger, and you want to foment anger and hatred against people. That those people just so happen to typically be foreign is not a coincidence.

What's worse than an arrogant person or a stupid person?

Answer: Sparhafoc, an arrogant AND stupid person, the worst combination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.

Further, when you spend so much of your energies on abusing me personally while flailing around avoiding arguments I've made criticizing your stated positions, it shows for anyone watching what kind of person you are. The list of personal attacks you've made of me in the last few months would not fit in one post of this forum. Of course, it's like water off a duck's back for me - I couldn't give a monkeys what poo you feel the need to sling to distract: it's lowest common denominator shit. It makes your capabilities look more suited for 15 word flame wars on Youtube, and it shows that you can't engage in reasoned discussion on any topic. The reason you do it is because you subconsciously know that your arguments do not stand on their own merit.

 

[Gnug215]

As a recent Ex Muslim, i agree, not all Muslims are terroists.

Yet, to get to that conclusion one will have to circumvent the traditional and accurate definition of a muslim. Islamic law and ruling condemns any and all fallower for breaking a certain rule, wheather that be failing to met a certain expectation or refusing to fallow jurisprudence. These and many mire and complex tuling define a muslim, depending on what school of thought that person may adhere to.

But regardless of the school of thought, the sharia, dictates the exact and precise ruling of mulim and non muslim interaction. In that A) A muslim must not befriend a non muslim(Sincerely) B) Must not live in none muslim lands (With certain exceptions like education) C) Must constantly be at war with none muslims except to rest in which lying is permitted. And in all that, non muslims must be considered much less of a human than muslims, must get less rights, and can be killed without ruling if demended necessary by a ruling authority or for breaking the many strict islamic rules.

I can go in and on, but my point is, sure not all people who call themselves muslims arent terroists, but the islami law in which they adhere to doesn’t recognize them as muslims either. Thus negating the appeal. But those like ISIS are considered true muslims for defending islam and killing the non muslims and taking back lands in which they islam calls their own.

All in the name if Allah!

Cheers.

Hi Wenlok, welcome aboard!

I hope you don't mind a few quick questions:

What made you become an ex-muslim?

With regards to what you said about muslim law and sharia, how and to what extent do these apply to any and every muslim?

Christians today aren't really expected to follow the letter of the Bible. How does that compare with muslims and the Quran?

Pizza or ice cream?


Again, welcome aboard. Hope you enjoy your stay!

 

[Gnug215]

[...] Okay that's a fair point, but they haven't done that yet and the civilized world doesn't have hundreds of years to wait for Muslims to get their shit together if they ever do.

I think this gets to the core of the issue, at least in terms of practical application, so I want to sit on this for a bit:


So what DO we do about the situation?
What practical solutions would you suggest here?

This kinda does sound like an admission from you that Christianity had similar issues a few hundred years ago.
(I'm not saying that to score points. It just sounds entirely reasonable to me. One could certainly argue differences, but I really do think the situations are overall comperable, and they might also have a similar outcome: namely that the large bulk of adherents of the religion will become moderate, productive members of society that follow the general norms of society as a whole.)
So if this is the case, wouldn't the reasonable and moral thing be to wait?
And when I say "wait", I don't just mean "sit and do nothing", but I mean it as a black-and-white alternative to some kind of alternative that could be horrific, like, say, wage total war on the entire muslim world.


In relation to this entire discussion, where you, Tree, are the more critical voice, and "we" are less so, I think we have to remember that none of us want religious extremism. "We" may seem to be defending Islam from some of your criticisms, but that's because "we" see them as unfair, unjustified and, most importantly, unproductive. But don't fool yourself: "we" (most of us, I presume) would much prefer a world without any extremism - or a world without religion, period. But I am pretty sure that very few of us would want to get to such a world through war, genocide and destruction.
So when "we" defend against the likes of you and your criticisms, I think it's safe to say that we're not really defending Islam, but rather we're critical of the ways that you are criticising it, because that kind of criticism is unproductive and could have negative consequences.

It's not that I'm some fucking pacifist hippie that thinks we can sing our way to world peace, but I just know from experience that conflict usually breeds more conflict. And singling out a certain group in the population for unrelenting criticism will in my mind only further marginalize and extremify(tm) them.

So, as I see it, you and I both don't think that religious nuts with insanely outdated moral codes and irrationality guiding them should rule society. So how do we fix the problem?

(I for one don't think the answer lies in discussing the finer points of comparative theology and the contents of holy texts, trying to figure out which is worse, Christianity (of now or a certain amount of years ago) or Islam.)




P.S. If anyone else on these boards felt that I tried to speak on their behalf - unjustifiably, incorrectly - then apologies, but that was just my assessment of the general concensus here, and I tried to speak as general as I could. Feel free to correct me.