• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

[Merged] General Criticism of Islam/Islamophobia Topics

Status
Not open for further replies.
'I have never stated that all Muslims are evil'

is the following an admission and therefore an error?

'You don't state it directly'


or how does this from the same poster

'I have done nothing to apologise for. I've shown a mirror of what you've really been doing, no matter what you claim. You may not have said those things outright, but the implication is so clear, that my satire post only making this a bit clearer is nothing for which I have to be ashamed. And I can tell you right now, I'll never apologise for showing the bigot what his bigotry really looks like to everyone else.'


fit with defintion of skepticism

Belz... said:
That's the thing about skeptics, Humes. We can draw conclusions based on evidence, not just claims.
Click to expand...
 
raff55 said:
'I have never stated that all Muslims are evil'

is the following an admission and therefore an error?

'You don't state it directly'
Click to expand...

You are aware, I´m sure, that it is possible to make things very clear (to all but the stupidest of readers) without explicitly stating it?
 
Chaos said:
You are aware, I´m sure, that it is possible to make things very clear (to all but the stupidest of readers) without explicitly stating it?
Click to expand...

Ah! Captain its yourself. So that is your claim.

The denial of making a particular statement and the agreement by the accuser that the particular statement was not made does not fool anyone except of course to the 'stupidest of readers' of which obviously you are not one.
 
raff55 said:
Ah! Captain its yourself. So that is your claim.
Click to expand...

Can you try to make sense, please?

The denial of making a particular statement and the agreement by the accuser that the particular statement was not made does not fool anyone except of course to the 'stupidest of readers' of which obviously you are not one.
Click to expand...

The denial of having made a particular statement is a red herring to begin with, since the body of the statements he has made make his attitude perfectly clear.
 
raff55 said:
Ah! Captain its yourself. So that is your claim.

The denial of making a particular statement and the agreement by the accuser that the particular statement was not made does not fool anyone except of course to the 'stupidest of readers' of which obviously you are not one.
Click to expand...

Question: does presumption of innocence, say in court, mean that the accused is actually innocent ? Or can we not use evidence, such as one's behaviour -- in this case constantly making threads bashing all Muslims, and going so far as saying that the non-violent ones, who should be commended, are in fact not true Muslims -- to determine the truth despite claims to the contrary ?
 
Belz... said:
Question: does presumption of innocence, say in court, mean that the accused is actually innocent ? Or can we not use evidence, such as one's behaviour -- in this case constantly making threads bashing all Muslims, and going so far as saying that the non-violent ones, who should be commended, are in fact not true Muslims -- to determine the truth despite claims to the contrary ?
Click to expand...

No. Only the blatantly obvious morons who state explicitly "I hate all Muslims" actually do so; all others are merely critics of Islam that you should unconditionally agree with. The real Islamophobes are those who disagree with the critics of Islam and do not want Muslim to have to give up their culture in accordance with the critics´ views, which are the only views in the world that are skeptical and compassionate towards Muslim - not to mention the only ones who aren´t the least bit racist.
 
Dissolution said:
Mohammed had a direct line to God, yet he married a six-year-old. He's supposed to be the standard that all Muslims aim for.
If it wasn't wrong for him then, then why would it be wrong for a follower of Islam now?

Claiming that someone's morals were suitable for the timeframe is irrelevant when you're discussing an agent of a supposedly timeless god.
Click to expand...

Christians believe God impregnated a 14 year-old, does that mean modern Christians have to think it's fine to bang 14 year-olds? Not to mention the age difference.

And not to mention that at least tens of millions of Muslims believe Aisha was older than Mary when Mohamed consummated their marriage.
 
Dissolution said:
Utterly irrelevant.
He was given a vision of her which he believed instructed him to marry her.
This happened before they married, so it appears that God gives out instruction for men to marry young girls, if you believe that this stuff is true.
Click to expand...

There's no particularly good reason to think it is. The people who believe Aisha was very young have political reasons to do so, as do the people who believe she wasn't. None of them really know. The vision is useless for establishing Aisha's age. I'm not a Sunni, myself, so I don't assume the Sunnis have the right of it. Why do you?
 
tsig said:
So there's no Islamic core belief, any Muslim can believe whatever they want and it's OK?
Click to expand...

Sure, that's what 'monolithic' means, absolutely no shared beliefs. Well, that is what it must mean in order for this to be a relevant response anyway, so let's all pretend it means that, eh?

tsig said:
As far as the Sunnis and Shi'ites, I am not concerned with the esoterics of sectarian beliefs.
Click to expand...

Because sects actually ARE relevant to whether Islam is monolithic, so stay away from those!
 
Last edited:
Mister Agenda said:
Sure, that's what 'monolithic' means, absolutely no shared beliefs. Well, that is what it must mean in order for this to be a relevant response anyway, so let's all pretend it means that, eh?



Because sects actually ARE relevant to whether Islam is monolithic, so stay away from those!
Click to expand...

The vehemence and vitriol displayed in the defense of Islam is making me think that it might be a religion of violence after all.
 
Belz... said:
Question: does presumption of innocence, say in court, mean that the accused is actually innocent ? Or can we not use evidence, such as one's behaviour -- in this case constantly making threads bashing all Muslims, and going so far as saying that the non-violent ones, who should be commended, are in fact not true Muslims -- to determine the truth despite claims to the contrary ?
Click to expand...

Sorry to take so long to get back but I did not have as much free time as I had thought.
I am a little puzzled as to why you would refer to legal proceedings as the presumption of innocence is the burden the accuser has to overcome to the judgement of a reasonable minded jury of your peers. The accusations are is at best circumstantial and based on interpretation and opinion. When asked directly the accused was unequivocal.
Then an opinion was offered as judgement. Not skeptical.
 
Last edited:
Humes fork said:
And also providing that evidence, which your ilk has repeatedly refused to do.
Click to expand...

So people are missunderstanding you? Your crtique is mainly about the extremist interpretation and not Islam itself?
 
DC said:
So people are missunderstanding you? Your crtique is mainly about the extremist interpretation and not Islam itself?
Click to expand...

There is no single "extremist intrerpretation" of Islam. Iran and Saudi Arabia hate each other, yet both are Islamic theocracies.

My critique is about Islam and its religious texts and to a lesser extent its history. I'm not talking about individual Muslims, or people in some way associated with Islam.

And I don't hate people over philosophical or political differences. Other people in this thread might do that because they often accuse me of doing so (by yourself you know others and all that), but I don't. The people I personally hate are those who have done something to me personally, which means mostly childhood and high school bullies and decievers and ass-lickers. Incidently none of them are Muslims.

I have a collegue at my job who is of Turkish background. Is he a believer? A Muslim? I don't know. I have never asked. He doesn't show any outward appearance of being Muslim and seems not to care about Islamic food or drinking rules. If it would turn out that he in some way considers himself a Muslim, would it change my perception of him? No. Becuase again I don't hate individuals based on political or philosophical opinions.

I'm not into identity politics, or into much politics at all (I quite rarely post in the political sections on the forum). We skeptics know the dangers of political ideology.
 
Humes fork said:
We skeptics know the dangers of political ideology.
Click to expand...

First, you would have to be a skeptics for you to talk about what "we, skeptics" know.

Second, you yourself have succumbed to political extremism in thinking that you can condemn Islam as a whole for the actions of some Muslims.
 
tsig said:
The vehemence and vitriol displayed in the defense of Islam is making me think that it might be a religion of violence after all.
Click to expand...

It appears that you have no freaking idea what "vitriol" means, if you think it applies to what you quoted.

Also, it would be easiert to take you seriously if you addressed arguments rather than attacking people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom