Attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

[a6m5]

I maintain my position. Idiots will ALWAYS exist. Learn to look away. Mankind suck at handing out punishment on behalf of whatever god. It's such a shame some people either ignore history, or refuses to take lessons from our past. 💡

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It's my moral responsibility to undermine the faith that needs (at least) reformation.

No, it's not. You are not Martin Luther with your ninety-five theses hammered to the church door.

If Islam is going to be reformed, then any reformation has to come from within. We can encourage it, we can facilitate it, but we cannot instigate it. And any role that we play will be positive - we cannot try to undermine it if a reformation is to stand any chance of succeeding. Nobody has the right or the responsibility to try and force change upon a culture, least of all with a father-knows-best attitude such as yours. Ultimately, your arrogance and your hubris will do much more harm than good.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Europeans shoved trashy free speech in their face. What else were Muslims supposed to do?

Just a suggestion..how about protesting without killing people and burning down churches and schools?

EDIT: Those darn no-go zones, no go away.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5128/france-no-go-zones

The Lip must be Fox Sweden

 

[Scaff]

Just a suggestion..how about protesting without killing people and burning down churches and schools?

Quite agree, good job that's what the majority do.

EDIT: Those darn no-go zones, no go away.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5128/france-no-go-zones

Gatestone manage to excel themselves on this one.

Lets start with:

"Had he simply said that "parts" of Birmingham are Muslim, he would have been correct."

Stated as a fact (in regard to the Fox claim) and yet no sources are provided and no areas are named. An open request to anyone who believes this: Provide the data to back it up.


Now aside from most of the sources being from the press we have one document from the French government that they manage to cherry pick from on a massive scale, misrepresenting both the data in the document and its purpose.

They also have totally ignored the socio-economic factors involved in this, in particular that the Paris suburbs have always been areas of high criminal activity. That neither means that they are 'Muslim no-go' areas or that Islam is the root cause, however that minority fundamental Islam will look to it as a recruitment ground is not exactly a surprise.

Citing Gatestone as if it were an impartial view on this subject is about as valid as quoting Choudary.

 

[niky]

Wrong, we have so many muslims so the problem doesn't magically disappear. And I want number of religious motivated terrorism to be zero. Any higher number is too many.

We have so many teenagers, the problem of teenage pregnancy doesn't magically disappear.

We have so many men, the problem of rape does not disappear.

We have so many humans on Earth, the problem of murder does not disappear.

I could go on and on and...

No it isn't, in situation where unemployment rate in EU is rather high, it's impossible to have all immigrants employed.

Are you suggesting, then, that the only valid reason for immigration is to take away jobs from the natives?

 

[novcze]

We have so many teenagers, the problem of teenage pregnancy doesn't magically disappear.
We have so many men, the problem of rape does not disappear.
We have so many humans on Earth, the problem of murder does not disappear.
I could go on and on and...
Are you suggesting, then, that the only valid reason for immigration is to take away jobs from the natives?

yes
yes
yes
and?
no

 

[niky]

yes
yes
yes
and?
no

Apparently, sarcasm does not translate.

Here's a few questions:

1. Does teen pregnancy mean that being a teenager is inherently bad?

2. Does rape mean that being a man is inherently bad?

3. Does murder mean that being a human is inherently bad?

And... finally:

4. Does fundamentalist radicalism mean that being Muslim is inherently bad?

-

Also: If the purpose of immigration isn't to perform labor, then what does the inability of the European Union to provide jobs for all immigrants have to do with anything, then? People will immigrate whether there are jobs or not, because the alternative is to stay in some crappy hellhole of a war zone where not only are there no jobs, but there's also a distinct possibility of being killed by armed militias.

 

[novcze]

If Islam is going to be reformed, then any reformation has to come from within.
We can encourage it, we can facilitate it, but we cannot instigate it. And any role that we play will be positive - we cannot try to undermine it if a reformation is to stand any chance of succeeding. Nobody has the right or the responsibility to try and force change upon a culture, least of all with a father-knows-best attitude such as yours. Ultimately, your arrogance and your hubris will do much more harm than good.

Are you sure that the Earth will be still in circumstellar habitable zone when it happens? It looks like they are more fundamental every time I watch the news. But really, nice muslims really need to do something, talk about how islamic fundamentalism is bad, etc.

 

[niky]

nice muslims really need to do something, talk about how islamic fundamentalism is bad, etc.

Who says they don't? Because a lot of them do say something about it, and you'll find that a lot of the militias fighitng against ISIS in its home territory are also... gasp... Muslim.

 

[novcze]

Apparently, sarcasm does not translate.

Here's a few questions:

1. Does teen pregnancy mean that being a teenager is inherently bad?

2. Does rape mean that being a man is inherently bad?

3. Does murder mean that being a human is inherently bad?

And... finally:

4. Does fundamentalist radicalism mean that being Muslim is inherently bad?

-

Also: If the purpose of immigration isn't to perform labor, then what does the inability of the European Union to provide jobs for all immigrants have to do with anything, then? People will immigrate whether there are jobs or not, because the alternative is to stay in some crappy hellhole of a war zone where not only are there no jobs, but there's also a distinct possibility of being killed by armed militias.

oh another one who just drop into discussion and pick the post to reply without reading previous discussion.

So just for you ... yes, not every muslim in the Europe is fundamentalist, I'm well aware of that, thank you.

As for immigration, it was my take on alternative to current multicultural politics, Europe should have right to say thank you, we are full. I'm all for help the refugees but they should be ready to return to their home and rebuild their country once it's safe there.

 

[niky]

oh another one who just drop into discussion and pick the post to reply without reading previous discussion.

I've read the past several pages of discussion. I've been following this thread from Page One.

So just for you ... yes, not every muslim in the Europe is fundamentalist, I'm well aware of that, thank you.

If you are aware of that, then what does this:

Wrong, we have so many muslims so the problem doesn't magically disappear.

Have to do with the actual cause of radical extremism?

If you put a thousand muslims in one room, does that automatically mean than one of them will be a radical jihadist?

There is no "critical mass" of Muslims that would lead to some of them becoming jihadists. Contented, prosperous Muslims living in a blended society do not become radicals, no matter how many of them there are.

Discontented, marginalized and angry young people, on the other hand, are at risk of becoming radicalized... whether they're Muslim, Christian or Atheist.

As for immigration, it was my take on alternative to current multicultural politics, Europe should have right to say thank you, we are full. I'm all for help the refugees but they should be ready to return to their home and rebuild their country once it's safe there.

And yet, that has nothing to do with multiculturalism at all. Which is why I replied to that comment, as I found it particularly strange. Immigration caps are simply that, and not based on ethnicity or culture.

 

[novcze]

Who says they don't? Because a lot of them do say something about it, and you'll find that a lot of the militias fighitng against ISIS in its home territory are also... gasp... Muslim.

This is all great, but nice muslims who live in Europe have to work on their image here in Europe and work on reformation of their religion. Last time I saw representative of Czech muslim community in TV, he talked about how it's ok to beat your wife because you don't beat her in face.

If you put a thousand muslims in one room, does that automatically mean than one of them will be a radical jihadist?

No, but if you put 12 milion muslims into Europe some of them are islamic radical fundamentalists, it is a fact. They kill people, drive into people while shouting their allah is akbar, etc. And our intelligence agencies guess another thousands in the sleeper cells.
As you read, I'm an atheist and when it comes to religion motivated crimes I say even one (crime) is too many and I strongly dislike when someone is trying make out of it a marginal issue.


I quite share the views of Pat Condell, worth watching

www.youtube.com/user/patcondell/videos

 

[Scaff]

But really, nice muslims really need to do something, talk about how islamic fundamentalism is bad, etc.

They do, just because you're not aware of it doesn't mean its not happening.

No, but if you put 12 milion muslims into Europe some of them are islamic radical fundamentalists, it is a fact. They kill people, drive into people while shouting their allah is akbar, etc. And our intelligence agencies guess another thousands in the sleeper cells.
As you read, I'm an atheist and when it comes to religion motivated crimes I say even one (crime) is too many and I strongly dislike when someone is trying make out of it a marginal issue.

No one is making it a marginal issue, they are putting it into context and scale.

Are you aware of the number of attacks that have occurred against Muslims and mosques, etc over the last month or so? Seems that you are happy to not even talk about that.

I quite share the views of Pat Condell, worth watching

Which comes as no surprise, a man with no concept of context and a bias about as clear as they come.

 

[Famine]

Wrong, we have so many muslims so the problem doesn't magically disappear.

But what does the problem (of, I assume, religiously-motivated terrorism) have to do with the number of Muslims which is, as I already showed you, really very small? The population of Muslims in Western Europe is about 3% and on raw numbers alone, the People's Republic of China has 3-5 times as many Muslims. It doesn't even register as 1% of the global Muslim population.

No it isn't, in situation where unemployment rate in EU is rather high, it's impossible to have all immigrants employed.

Apparently we have different interpretations of the word "latter". Here it is again:

But don't want from me to adjust my behaviour to accommodate to your ****ed up religion.

That's multiculturalism, so it turns out you actually do support it. In fact adding in the previous phrase (not the previous sentence) completely encapsulates the multicultural attitude:

I don't care what they do when they are alone, if they prey to Zeus, speak Klingon, whatever. But don't want from me to adjust my behaviour to accommodate to your ****ed up religion.

So you can see how it's a bit weird that you rage against multiculturalism when it turns out that you actually support it...

Did someone tell you that multiculturalism means something else?

No, but if you put 12 milion muslims into Europe some of them are islamic radical fundamentalists, it is a fact.

No, it's a statistical likelihood, not a fact.

Equally, if you put 12 million Jews into the Middle East, some of them are likely to be Jewish radical fundamentalists - and if you put 12 million Christians into Africa, some of them are likely to be Christian fundamentalists...

 

[novcze]

I don't feel like discussing this forever because it goes in circles. If you don't want to understand my view on this, so be it.

 

[Famine]

I don't feel like discussing this forever because it goes in circles. If you don't want to understand my view on this, so be it.

I do understand it - I see it all the time. The problem is that you don't and aren't willing to spend even a fraction of a second analysing it.

You're against multiculturalism, but you'd let immigrants who come over do whatever they felt like in the privacy of their own home so long as they do what everyone else does in public and you don't have to change... which is exactly what multiculturalism is. The funny thing is that it doesn't just apply to immigrants but everyone - we all have our own subcultures that we're allowed to exercise while society at large rumbles on unchanged by it.


I still can't quite get to the bottom of why you think that 12 million Muslims is a lot or means religiously-motivated terrorism (defined as "acts against a civilian population, intended to cause harm or death in order to spread fear - with the religious beliefs of the perpetrators as a primary motivation") will occur.

By percentage and by population there are more Muslims in China than in Western Europe - about 55 million in a population of 1.35 billion (4%). It's not quite as simple as "there's loads of Muslims, so terrorism will occur".

Bearing in mind that all of the major Western terrorist attacks by Muslims have been undertaken by Salafi/Wahhabi Muslims, who represent about 3% of the Islamic population worldwide, the 12 million Muslims you're afraid of are already only 360,000 Salafists/Wahhabists proportionally (assuming these traditionalists even want to move away from idylls like Saudi and Qatar).

If you further consider that the combined total membership of Boko Haram, Al Qa'ida and ISIL represents only 0.003% of the Islamic population worldwide, the 12 million Western European Muslims are now 360 individuals - in a population of 350 million (again, assuming they even want to move away from the struggle to establish their Caliphate and wipe out the Shia/Sufi populations). You are ten times more likely to encounter a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the USA (~5,000 members in a 300 million population), so let's start talking about kicking all of the Christians out of the USA to curb religiously-motivated terrorism - after all, there's bloody loads of them...

 

[novcze]

I do understand it ....

... you still do not understand

You're against multiculturalism, but you'd let immigrants who come over do whatever they felt like in the privacy of their own home so long as they do what everyone else does in public and you don't have to change... which is exactly what multiculturalism is. The funny thing is that it doesn't just apply to immigrants but everyone - we all have our own subcultures that we're allowed to exercise while society at large rumbles on unchanged by it.

You have described idea of multiculturalism. Idea is ok, but this is not exactly what is going on which is reason why I have problem with it. Some western media already censor themselves so they (muslims) certainly managed some change which I don't like.
I found all religions to be quite dangerous, so if change is occuring because of religion it makes me even more cautious.
I don't want to take their religion from them, it's their personal choice, but why we can just leave all gods behind and work as one human kind to achieve something here and now?

I still can't quite get to the bottom of why you think that 12 million Muslims is a lot or means religiously-motivated terrorism (defined as "acts against a civilian population, intended to cause harm or death in order to spread fear - with the religious beliefs of the perpetrators as a primary motivation") will occur.

By percentage and by population there are more Muslims in China than in Western Europe - about 55 million in a population of 1.35 billion (4%). It's not quite as simple as "there's loads of Muslims, so terrorism will occur".

Bearing in mind that all of the major Western terrorist attacks by Muslims have been undertaken by Salafi/Wahhabi Muslims, who represent about 3% of the Islamic population worldwide, the 12 million Muslims you're afraid of are already only 360,000 Salafists/Wahhabists proportionally (assuming these traditionalists even want to move away from idylls like Saudi and Qatar).

If you further consider that the combined total membership of Boko Haram, Al Qa'ida and ISIL represents only 0.003% of the Islamic population worldwide, the 12 million Western European Muslims are now 360 individuals - in a population of 350 million (again, assuming they even want to move away from the struggle to establish their Caliphate and wipe out the Shia/Sufi populations). You are ten times more likely to encounter a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the USA (~5,000 members in a 300 million population), so let's start talking about kicking all of the Christians out of the USA to curb religiously-motivated terrorism - after all, there's bloody loads of them...

Why we even talk about muslim terrorists in Europe who do religiously motivated terrorism ... because they exists, right? Why we don't talk about hindu, shinto, buddhist, etc. terrorists in Europe?
I do understand that in bigger picture it's just small fraction of all muslims, I never said anything else. But why I shouldn't be concerned is beyond me, because numbers are low? There are more important things to be worried about, but when it comes to religions, islam is problematic one.

And this is my last post on this matter.

 

[Scaff]

Why we even talk about muslim terrorists in Europe who do religiously motivated terrorism ... because they exists, right? Why we don't talk about hindu, shinto, buddhist, etc. terrorists in Europe?

Because the numbers from those faiths are so low as to be statistically non-existent.

I do find it interesting however that you somehow avoid mentioning Christianity? A much better question woudl be why don't we talk about Christian based terrorism, after all it exists either directly or under the guise of seperatist groups. Why are you not worrying about that and demanding it be talked about?

I do understand that in bigger picture it's just small fraction of all muslims, I never said anything else. But why I shouldn't be concerned is beyond me, because numbers are low? There are more important things to be worried about, but when it comes to religions, islam is problematic one.

What all Muslims?

Every single sect is a problem?

And this is my last post on this matter.

We shall see

 

[Famine]

... you still do not understand

Seems rather like I nailed it...

You have described idea of multiculturalism. Idea is ok, but this is not exactly what is going on which is reason why I have problem with it. Some western media already censor themselves so they (muslims) certainly managed some change which I don't like.

Let's assume for a minute that by "censor themselves" you mean "won't display images of Mohamed"... In order for the change to have occurred you need to demonstrate that they used to display images of Mohamed but now don't.

So when did "Some western media" ever display images of Mohamed?

I found all religions to be quite dangerous, so if change is occuring because of religion it makes me even more cautious.
I don't want to take their religion from them, it's their personal choice, but why we can just leave all gods behind and work as one human kind to achieve something here and now?

Do you believe atheism to be less dangerous? Why?

Why we even talk about muslim terrorists in Europe who do religiously motivated terrorism ... because they exists, right? Why we don't talk about hindu, shinto, buddhist, etc. terrorists in Europe?

I've no idea.

However, let's make an assumption that the 0.003% membership of extremist groups holds true regardless of religion. For Islam that makes 360 individuals in Western Europe. For Judaism - the next biggest religion after Islam - it's about 50 individuals. For Hinduism it's nearer to 10. For every other religion than those put together it's about 2. Personally I think it's quite hard for two people to form a terrorist cel, but that's just me. Not that it stopped Breivik... Wait, wasn't he Christian?

Speaking of which, let's talk about Christianity. Oh, that's about 11,000 people. Does Christian Terrorism not exist, or are we just not talking about it for some reason? Is there no "ethnic cleansing" carried out by Christian groups in Europe or are we just not talking about it for some reason?

I do understand that in bigger picture it's just small fraction of all muslims, I never said anything else. But why I shouldn't be concerned is beyond me, because numbers are low? There are more important things to be worried about, but when it comes to religions, islam is problematic one.

And this is the other side of your problem - it's just a small fraction of people, not Muslims.

You want to believe that Islam is the problem, rather than people. This means you take every instance of Muslims being idiots as proof of your belief and ignore every instance of non-Muslims being idiots - just like a very religious person selectively ignores evidence (like the entirety of evolution) against their beliefs. Believing Islam is dangerous is an act of faith - the sort of thing you say you're against.

This then becomes an anti-multiculturalism drive, as you claim you're happy for people to believe what they want in private as long as it doesn't affect your life (which is what multiculturalism actually is) so long as they aren't Muslims, because you think that what Muslims believe is dangerous or can be made dangerous.


The reality is that most Western Muslims are no more dangerous than most Western Christians (marginally less so, in fact) - it's lack of education that leads to radicalisation, in countries where the population is kept poor and illiterate so that hokey forms of religion can be fed to them by religious teachers. Much like Christianity in the Middle Ages in fact.

The irony of all of this is that the internet musings of supposedly educated Westerners would be used by Islamic hate preachers to show barely educated Muslims how much the West hates them...

 

[BobK]

And this is my last post on this matter.

If I had a dollar for every "this is my last post" that in fact wasn't, I'd be rich.

Or at least well-off.

Just sayin'.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Seems rather like I nailed it...Let's assume for a minute that by "censor themselves" you mean "won't display images of Mohamed"... In order for the change to have occurred you need to demonstrate that they used to display images of Mohamed but now don't.

So when did "Some western media" ever display images of Mohamed?Do you believe atheism to be less dangerous? Why?I've no idea.

However, let's make an assumption that the 0.003% membership of extremist groups holds true regardless of religion. For Islam that makes 360 individuals in Western Europe. For Judaism - the next biggest religion after Islam - it's about 50 individuals. For Hinduism it's nearer to 10. For every other religion than those put together it's about 2. Personally I think it's quite hard for two people to form a terrorist cel, but that's just me. Not that it stopped Breivik... Wait, wasn't he Christian?

Speaking of which, let's talk about Christianity. Oh, that's about 11,000 people. Does Christian Terrorism not exist, or are we just not talking about it for some reason? Is there no "ethnic cleansing" carried out by Christian groups in Europe or are we just not talking about it for some reason?And this is the other side of your problem - it's just a small fraction of people, not Muslims.

You want to believe that Islam is the problem, rather than people. This means you take every instance of Muslims being idiots as proof of your belief and ignore every instance of non-Muslims being idiots - just like a very religious person selectively ignores evidence (like the entirety of evolution) against their beliefs. Believing Islam is dangerous is an act of faith - the sort of thing you say you're against.

This then becomes an anti-multiculturalism drive, as you claim you're happy for people to believe what they want in private as long as it doesn't affect your life (which is what multiculturalism actually is) so long as they aren't Muslims, because you think that what Muslims believe is dangerous or can be made dangerous.


The reality is that most Western Muslims are no more dangerous than most Western Christians (marginally less so, in fact) - it's lack of education that leads to radicalisation, in countries where the population is kept poor and illiterate so that hokey forms of religion can be fed to them by religious teachers. Much like Christianity in the Middle Ages in fact.

The irony of all of this is that the internet musings of supposedly educated Westerners would be used by Islamic hate preachers to show barely educated Muslims how much the West hates them...

From your first link:

The conflict was primarily a political one, but it also had an ethnic or sectarian dimension,[29] although it was not a religious conflict

From the Beebs about your second link:

Ratko Mladic's apparent motivation during the war was Serbian nationalism. He saw it as an opportunity to avenge five centuries of occupation by Muslim Turks. He even referred to Bosniaks as "Turks", a term he used to insult them.

Am I missing something? I see no religious motivation or anyone acting on behalf of Christianity in either of your two links.

 

[Famine]

Am I missing something? I see no religious motivation or anyone acting on behalf of Christianity in either of your two links.

The Troubles was primarily a Republican vs. Loyalist/Unionist conflict, but that's dressing for sectarianism. The former group wanted Ulster to rejoin the (Catholic) Republic of Ireland while the latter wanted it to remain part of the United Kingdom, which is ruled by the monarch who is also the figurehead of the (Protestant) Church of England. There is almost a clean dividing line of Catholic Republican and Protestant Unionists - one only has to look at Orange Walks to see it.

The ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina was directed at the plurality Muslim Bosniaks by the minority Orthodox Serbs. "Turks", for reference, usually doesn't mean "people from Turkey", rather the Turkic people who are overwhelmingly Muslim. Not a shocker since they're the descendants of the Ottoman Empire. You can find Turkics in Turkey (Turks), Turkmenistan (Turkmen), Kyrgyzstan (Kyrgyz), Uzbekistan (Uzbeks), Kazakhstan (Kazakhs) - all majority Muslim nations (though Turkey has no official state religion, oddly) - and China (Uyghur). I think I'm right in saying that all are primarily Sunni.

 

[KSaiyu]

They also have totally ignored the socio-economic factors involved in this, in particular that the Paris suburbs have always been areas of high criminal activity. That neither means that they are 'Muslim no-go' areas or that Islam is the root cause, however that minority fundamental Islam will look to it as a recruitment ground is not exactly a surprise.

This is my experience of the "muslim" no-go areas of London. Just like I wouldn't advise an ethnic minority to take a stroll through the NF strongholds of SE London or anyone to go through the estates near Elephant and Castle.

If your blood pressure can handle it @novcze I recommend you watch a recent documentary that caused quite a stir over here called "Angry, White and Proud" (was shown on channel 4). Alternatively if that's unavailable try the film "Football Factory" for a pretty realistic look at football hooliganism.

 

[mister dog]

@novcze I checked out uncle Pat's videos and i must say he has some good points on how muslims interpret the Koran in a way that causes more harm than good. One cannot agree with things like genital mutilation, child marriage and the discrimination of women and death threats to non believers or all who do not conform. We do hold these opposite values of liberty in the western world and indeed we can be labelled as hypocrites if we look down on someone who openly states it like he does.

On the other hand we fall into the category of extremists also if we stigmatize all muslims and their religion in the same way the extremist muslims do with us, so i have mixed feelings about it all.

 

[novcze]

If I had a dollar for every "this is my last post" that in fact wasn't, I'd be rich.

Or at least well-off.

Just sayin'.

So here is another dollar ...



If we want to leave the topic of recent attacks motivated be certain religious belief behind, we can say stupid people do stupid things, we can end lot of discussions with this saying. Football hooligans = stupid people with herd mentality do stupid things, end of discussion. Somebody killed lot of French caricaturists = stupid people do stupid things, end of discussion ... in the name of political correctness do not ask why because answer can motivate other stupid people to do stupid things.

As for atheism, first of all atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, nothing more.

If I decide to belive that islam is the most dangerous from all other religions in Europe, it's my personal decision based on the evidence. What evidence you ask, well there are some very recent examples of violence done in Europe by followers of islam and when you read their holy book they just do what Koran says.

Some may think I'm leaving out christianity but I'm not (it was me trying to be on topic), it's no better than islam, they are just more reformed into more peaceful ideology, too bad their spokeperson doesn't know when is better to keep his mouth shut. And I also blame George Bush who is christian for destabilizing Iraq region and today situation with ISIL.


And as for atheism being better, if you are stupid person and also religous you can justify lot of your actions, you are promised heaven after all. If you are an atheist person, you are individual fully responsible for your actions, you have only one life and you know it. It takes much more stupidity to kill somebody over something when you are not brainwashed with some ideology, isn't better?


ehh, and my so-called anti-multiculturalism drive is not fuelled with islam hate, I just think it will fail as some other great ideas failed before, because .... wait for it .... people are stupid. End of discussion.


It should be obvious by now, that my English is far from perfect, so it may look like I'm raging or I hate muslims and have high blood pressure because of islam, no it's not like that.

@novcze
On the other hand we fall into the category of extremists also if we stigmatize all muslims and their religion in the same way the extremist muslims do with us, so i have mixed feelings about it all.

We do? We are only putting more pressure on nice muslims to distinct themselves from extremist muslims, not a bad thing and far from extremism.

 

[Dotini]

So here is another dollar or maybe not, because I'm going off topic.



If we want to leave the topic of recent attacks motivated be certain religious belief behind, we can say stupid people do stupid things, we can end lot of discussions with this saying. Football hooligans = stupid people with herd mentality do stupid things, end of discussion. Somebody killed lot of French caricaturists = stupid people do stupid things, end of discussion ... in the name of political correctness do not ask why because answer can motivate other stupid people to do stupid things.

As for atheism, first of all atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, nothing more.

If I decide to belive that islam is the most dangerous from all other religions in Europe, it's my personal decision based on the evidence. What evidence you ask, well there are some very recent examples of violence done in Europe by followers of islam and when you read their holy book they just do what Koran says.

Some may think I'm leaving out christianity but I'm not (it was me trying to be on topic), it's no better than islam, they are just more reformed into more peaceful ideology, too bad their spokeperson doesn't know when is better to keep his mouth shut. And I also blame George Bush who is christian for destabilizing Iraq region and today situation with ISIL.


And as for atheism being better, if you are stupid person and also religous you can justify lot of your actions, you are promised heaven after all. If you are an atheist person, you are individual fully responsible for your actions, you have only one life and you know it. It takes much more stupidity to kill somebody over something when you are not brainwashed with some ideology, isn't better?


ehh, and my so-called anti-multiculturalism drive is not fuelled with islam hate, I just think it will fail as some other great ideas failed before, because .... wait for it .... people are stupid. End of discussion.


It should be obvious by now, that my English is far from perfect, so it may look like I'm raging or I hate muslims and have high blood pressure because of islam, no it's not like that.





We do? We are only putting more pressure on nice muslims to distinct themselves from extremist muslims, not a bad thing and far from extremism.

Clearly you put a lot of thought and effort into your post. You could easily make it more credible by going back and capitalizing proper nouns.

 

[Famine]

And as for atheism being better, if you are stupid person and also religous you can justify lot of your actions, you are promised heaven after all. If you are an atheist person, you are individual fully responsible for your actions, you have only one life and you know it. It takes much more stupidity to kill somebody over something when you are not brainwashed with some ideology, isn't better?

No.

Even if you bin all the people who call themselves atheist when they're actually nontheist (and we've been over the definitions of atheism and nontheism many times in the O&CE forum), there is no reason that someone who has no belief in deities cannot act just as cruelly as someone who believes in none, one or many.

ehh, and my so-called anti-multiculturalism drive is not fuelled with islam hate, I just think it will fail as some other great ideas failed before, because .... wait for it .... people are stupid.

I asked you what your alternatives were, and you came up with multiculturalism (not caring what people worship in private if you don't have to change). It seems that you agree with multiculturalism and think it's the best way to go about a society as a whole - with everyone's subculture allowed to do whatever they like in private so long as it doesn't require a change in the rules for everyone.

So I don't really know what your objections to it are, nor why you think it'll fail due to stupid people - it doesn't matter how stupid the subcultures are, because it doesn't affect larger society. That's the entire point of it.

End of discussion.

Congratulations on the promotion.

It should be obvious by now, that my English is far from perfect, so it may look like I'm raging or I hate muslims and have high blood pressure because of islam, no it's not like that.

It's not helped when you say there's "so many" Muslims in Western Europe (3%, or 12 million) as if that's some kind of innate problem. Nor when you say things like this:

We do? We are only putting more pressure on nice muslims to distinct themselves from extremist muslims, not a bad thing and far from extremism.

Why should we not put pressure on nice Christians to distinguish themselves from the KKK, the Westboro Baptist Church or the Phineas Priesthood? Why should we not put pressure on nice teenagers to distinguish themselves from every troubled kid who shoots up his high school?

Why is it we're expecting 1.6 billion people to say "Ahh, sorry about that but we're not all like that", whenever the 0.003% of assholes they've got in their population blow someone or something up, but no-one else must ever have to apologise for awful acts committed by people of the same demographic as them? What about Islam is it that makes people demand they speak up against acts they've never spoken in favour of?

 

[novcze]

... there is no reason that someone who has no belief in deities cannot act just as cruelly as someone who believes in none, one or many.

yes, sure, but my point was "one less reason to act stupid" which in my opinion is better.

I asked you what your alternatives were, and you came up with multiculturalism

I also came up with economic conditions necessary for it to flourish, e.g. work for every immigrant so they can integrate into society and have less time to think about stupid things

Why should we not put pressure on nice Christians to distinguish themselves from the KKK, the Westboro Baptist Church or the Phineas Priesthood?

sure why not, tell me when KKK starts to operate in Saudi Arabia and when it happens, there will be Pope quickly saying they are not acting on behalf of christianity

Why should we not put pressure on nice teenagers to distinguish themselves from every troubled kid who shoots up his high school?

really? radical islam is sort of problem in Europe coming from the outside, how you can compare them to troubled teens who are internal problem of the society

What about Islam is it that makes people demand they speak up against acts they've never spoken in favour of?

Because average people knows nothing about islam and its sects and it doesn't help if they use islamic state like Saudi Arabia as reference.

 

[Famine]

yes, sure, but my point was "one less reason to act stupid" which in my opinion is better.

One of the defining factors of stupidity is acting not according to reason...

That aside, you haven't eliminated any reasons - stupid people act stupidly because there's no god just as they would because god told them to.

I also came up with economic conditions necessary for it to flourish, e.g. work for every immigrant so they can integrate into society and have less time to think about stupid things

It's not an immigration issue. The 12 million Muslims in Western Europe didn't all come in from outside - the majority are second and third generation natives.

sure why not, tell me when KKK starts to operate in Saudi Arabia and when it happens, there will be Pope quickly saying they are not acting on behalf of christianity

Why is that relevant? They act in a secular state (the USA).

really? radical islam is sort of problem in Europe coming from the outside, how you can compare them to troubled teens who are internal problem of the society

All of the 7/7 bombers were born in the UK. The Kouachi brothers were born in France. Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale were born in the UK. These are people who are amongst us - it's not an immigration problem.

Because average people knows nothing about islam and its sects and it doesn't help if they use islamic state like Saudi Arabia as reference.

Aside from the fact that this doesn't address the question whatsoever, the average person doesn't know the difference between an atheist, an agnostic and a nontheist. The average Muslim won't know the difference between Catholicism, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. That doesn't mean that all Christians must apologise for the actions of the Baptist Westboro Baptist Church - nor even should all Baptists!

You don't demand that all agnostics apologise for the actions of the atheist Jeffrey Dahmer or quasi-atheist Kim family of North Korea - so why demand all Muslims apologise for murders committed by different Muslims?

 

[novcze]

One of the defining factors of stupidity is acting not according to reason...
That aside, you haven't eliminated any reasons - stupid people act stupidly because there's no god just as they would because god told them to.

I don't quite understand, if your religion says kill infidels and you remove religion (I'm not suggesting anything here, right), isn't one less reason to kill?

It's not an immigration issue. The 12 million Muslims in Western Europe didn't all come in from outside - the majority are second and third generation natives.

All of the 7/7 bombers were born in the UK. The Kouachi brothers were born in France. Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale were born in the UK. These are people who are amongst us - it's not an immigration problem.

Isn't it nice example of how multiculturalism is failing because of stupid people, 3rd generation of immigrants are not integrated into society and certain interpretation of Koran is giving them reason to kill people. Did they have any other reason apart from protecting prophet mohamed (I'm talking about France shooting).

Aside from the fact that this doesn't address the question whatsoever, the average person doesn't know the difference between an atheist, an agnostic and a nontheist. The average Muslim won't know the difference between Catholicism, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. That doesn't mean that all Christians must apologise for the actions of the Baptist Westboro Baptist Church - nor even should all Baptists!
You don't demand that all agnostics apologise for the actions of the atheist Jeffrey Dahmer or quasi-atheist Kim family of North Korea - so why demand all Muslims apologise for murders committed by different Muslims?

I don't demand anything and apology is last thing I would like. I think they should differentiate from extreme islam just like Baptists did. The WBC is not affiliated with any Baptist denomination. The Baptist World Alliance and the Southern Baptist Convention (the two largest Baptist denominations) have each denounced the WBC over the years.
Same goes for KKK. , virtually every Christian denomination officially denounced the Ku Klux Klan