Islam - What's your view on it?

[HenrySwanson]

I guess @HenrySwanson wants to cherrypick muslim extremist violence as if other religious violence rarely happens.

So you're saying that the Second World War was religious in nature....?

I guess the thing is that simply because of how religions tend to be segregated geographically, and some geographical areas will be undergoing more conflict than others at any given time, naturally you're going to see disproportionate violence "related" to one religion if you take statistics over a short enough period.

That doesn't mean that it's a causative relationship. And if you're using small sample sizes, they become basically non-predictive for the purpose of establishing the likelihood of future violence from that religion.

This is the problem of having a conclusion and working backwards from that to choose the data that you wish to use to justify it. If you include all available data and an understanding of the wider circumstances around the numbers (ie. actually follow the scientific method), it becomes much harder to point directly at any religion as a whole and accuse it of extremist violence. Things like geopolitics and contested resources just have too large an effect.

So you're saying that:

Islamists in at least 5 of 7 continents are all misinterprating their own religion?
In the past week, Islamists in the DRC, Kenya, Russia, France *, Yemen, Somalia, India, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq have all been under the same delusion that they are fighting for Islam when in reality they are killing themselves and others because of "geopolitics and contested resources".

Huh....

Interesting....

*The France attack is still fresh so we don't know about the man-wearing-a-suicide-vest-and-stabbing-random-civilian's motives yet

 

[PocketZeven]

So you're saying that the Second World War was religious in nature....?

In a sense ideology and religion are closely related. But it is still accurate to say it was violence against 1 religion and therefore motivated by religion.

Similar to your rhetoric against Islam.

 

[HenrySwanson]

In a sense ideology and religion are closely related. But it is still accurate to say it was violence against 1 religion and therefore motivated by religion.

Similar to your rhetoric against Islam.

Religious persecution =/= fighting in the name of a religion

That's like saying the Chinese are currently fighting a religious war against the Uighurs

 

[baldgye]

In the past week...

You could do yourself a favour and read a book or two on European history.

Islam is no more violent than Christianity (for example). But cherry picking time frames to the very now isn’t very useful to anyone bar someone with a very clear agenda. Be like trying to say that Christianity only did evil and then refusing to look at anything but the Crusades... or when they sacked the Library of Alexandria...

 

[HenrySwanson]

You could do yourself a favour and read a book or two on European history.

Islam is no more violent than Christianity (for example). But cherry picking time frames to the very now isn’t very useful to anyone bar someone with a very clear agenda. Be like trying to say that Christianity only did evil and then refusing to look at anything but the Crusades... or when they sacked the Library of Alexandria...

So Islam has only just turned violent and hasn't been during any other time?

Hint: I'm not the one pointing to conflicts that ended 700 years ago to prove my point....

 

[baldgye]

So Islam has only just turned violent and hasn't been during any other time?

Hint: I'm not the one pointing to conflicts that ended 700 years ago to prove my point....

What point are you trying to prove? You seem to have zero understanding of the religion your happy to criticise, no concept of the environment in which it exists and the modern world.

Yet you cling to these incidents as proof that, Islam is naturally, what? That it’s a religion designed to create terrorists? Why then do ISIS and their ilk have to brainwash people? Why did the Saudi’s have to push their own extremist form of Islam into the world (with help from the west)?

 

[PocketZeven]

Religious persecution =/= fighting in the name of a religion

That's like saying the Chinese are currently fighting a religious war against the Uighurs

So Islam has only just turned violent and hasn't been during any other time?

Hint: I'm not the one pointing to conflicts that ended 700 years ago to prove my point....

You are missing the point. Your claim was that Islam is violent as if other religions are not. As I and balgye pointed out, religion is not the cause of violence. Any religion can be just as violent as any other.

Historically religion is misused as a very effective propaganda tool to attract and recruit following for political, financial or even personal motivations. The crusades being an excellent example.

Extremist violence=extremist violence. Even if nazi-ism isnt a religion it did motivate the holocaust.

 

[HenrySwanson]

What point are you trying to prove? You seem to have zero understanding of the religion your happy to criticise, no concept of the environment in which it exists and the modern world.

Yet you cling to these incidents as proof that, Islam is naturally, what? That it’s a religion designed to create terrorists? Why then do ISIS and their ilk have to brainwash people? Why did the Saudi’s have to push their own extremist form of Islam into the world (with help from the west)?

That some religions are more violent than others.
That some religions are more homophobic than others.
That some religions treat animals better than others.

I'm saying that things are on a spectrum and it's foolish to say all religions are equally good/bad in every facet.

You are missing the point. Your claim was that Islam is violent as if other religions are not. As I and balgye pointed out, religion is not the cause of violence. Any religion can be just as violent as any other.

Historically religion is misused as a very effective propaganda tool to attract and recruit following for political, financial or even personal motivations. The crusades being an excellent example.

Again, you are having to go back over half a millenium ago to prove your point.

 

[baldgye]

That some religions are more violent than others.
That some religions are more homophobic than others.
That some religions treat animals better than others.

I'm saying that things are on a spectrum and it's foolish to say all religions are equally good/bad in every facet.

Except, that isn’t what you’re saying. You’re not playing with nuance your pointing to acts of extreme forms of mass killings and basically going; EVERYONE LOOK HOW BAD ISLAM IS, MUST BE EVIL I GUESS.

Any point you might think you’re making is lost and no discussion with you about it can be serious. To claim Islam is more violent than Christianity would take years of research and even then, you might not be able to come to any form of meaningful conclusion. So instead of making ridiculous claims backed up with nonsense, have a crack at seriously reading into this subject (as you’re clearly interested). Then you might have an appreciation for the scope of the sweeping claims you’re making.

 

[PocketZeven]

That some religions are more violent than others.
That some religions are more homophobic than others.
That some religions treat animals better than others.

I'm saying that things are on a spectrum and it's foolish to say all religions are equally good/bad in every facet.


Again, you are having to go back over half a millenium ago to prove your point.

People are violent/homophobic/treat animals better, not religion.

Who said all religions are equal?

Yes you have to look back, to learn from peoples mistakes. Not enough people "go back" and therefore societies make the same mistake over and over again. edit: Like blaming religions for the problems in the world.

 

[Imari]

So you're saying that:

Islamists in at least 5 of 7 continents are all misinterprating their own religion?
In the past week, Islamists in the DRC, Kenya, Russia, France *, Yemen, Somalia, India, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq have all been under the same delusion that they are fighting for Islam when in reality they are killing themselves and others because of "geopolitics and contested resources".

Huh....

Interesting....

*The France attack is still fresh so we don't know about the man-wearing-a-suicide-vest-and-stabbing-random-civilian's motives yet

You should look into the history of some of these countries. You might be surprised at what you learn.

I mean, to take the easy one, do you have any idea why there has been conflict in Afghanistan for basically the last forty years? It's not because religion, although I'm sure Afghanis are very willing to take God's name in defending their country as they feel righteous and just (probably fairly correctly, at least in the homeland defense sense). It's not uncommon for militants to feel that they're doing God's work.

 

[TexRex]

That some religions are more violent than others.

Religions aren't capable of perpetrating acts of violence. People are, and they're capable of doing so in the absence of religion.

That some religions are more homophobic than others.

Religions aren't capable of being homophobic. People are, and they're capable of doing so in the absence of religion.

That some religions treat animals better than others.

Religions aren't capable of treating animals any particular way. People are, and they're capable of doing so in the absence of religion.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So you're saying that the Second World War was religious in nature....?

Does he need to? It's quite obvious that it was. Views on Hitler's own religiosity vary but nonetheless lebensraum was very specifically defined.

So you're saying that Islamists in at least 5 of 7 continents are all misinterprating their own religion?
In the past week, Islamists in the DRC, Kenya, Russia, France *, Yemen, Somalia, India, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq have all been under the same delusion that they are fighting for Islam when in reality they are killing themselves and others because of "geopolitics and contested resources".

Geopolitical is a good way to put it, yes. Political motivations in geographical areas are prime drivers of that violence, much of it split along tribal lines and/or due to particular local history.

 

[PocketZeven]

Political motivations in geographical areas are prime drivers of that violence, much of it split along tribal lines and/or due to particular local history.

Just like how ancient middle East (Persia) was quite violent thousands of years before islam.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Except, that isn’t what you’re saying. You’re not playing with nuance your pointing to acts of extreme forms of mass killings and basically going; EVERYONE LOOK HOW BAD ISLAM IS, MUST BE EVIL I GUESS.

Any point you might think you’re making is lost and no discussion with you about it can be serious. To claim Islam is more violent than Christianity would take years of research and even then, you might not be able to come to any form of meaningful conclusion. So instead of making ridiculous claims backed up with nonsense, have a crack at seriously reading into this subject (as you’re clearly interested). Then you might have an appreciation for the scope of the sweeping claims you’re making.

You're the one playing to emotions instead of keeping a clear head.

I point out that in the last week 11 countries in 3 continents have had attacks by people acting in the name of Islam and you say "Probably no connection here, let's move on!" and expect me to take your points seriously

Religions aren't capable of perpetrating acts of violence. People are, and they're capable of doing so in the absence of religion.


Religions aren't capable of being homophobic. People are, and they're capable of doing so in the absence of religion.


Religions aren't capable of treating animals any particular way. People are, and they're capable of doing so in the absence of religion.

Just to be clear, by this logic the BNP are as benign an influence on people as the Green party?

Who said all religions are equal?

So would you agree that some are more violent than others?

You should look into the history of some of these countries. You might be surprised at what you learn.

I mean, to take the easy one, do you have any idea why there has been conflict in Afghanistan for basically the last forty years? It's not because religion, although I'm sure Afghanis are very willing to take God's name in defending their country as they feel righteous and just (probably fairly correctly, at least in the homeland defense sense). It's not uncommon for militants to feel that they're doing God's work.

Are you saying that you understand Islam better than those who have killed themselves for Islam?

Does he need to? It's quite obvious that it was. Views on Hitler's own religiosity vary but nonetheless lebensraum was very specifically defined.

You're basing your argument on a guy who openly admired Islam over "effete, meek Christianity" and whose man in overall charge of Jewish death camps stated that Islam is "a practical and attractive religion for soldiers" since it rewarded martyrs in the afterlife?

 

[TexRex]

Just to be clear, by this logic the BNP are as benign an influence on people as the Green party?

They're both made up of...wait for it...people.

 

[PocketZeven]

So would you agree that some are more violent than others?

I explained that religions are not violent, but people are. Are you suggesting islam is more violent then christianity?

edit: or visa versa?

edit 2: I remember you agreeing to the claim that some ethnicities are more intelligent then others in another thread. Do you also think some ethnicities are more violent?

 

[baldgye]

You're the one playing to emotions instead of keeping a clear head.

I point out that in the last week 11 countries in 3 continents have had attacks by people acting in the name of Islam and you say "Probably no connection here, let's move on!" and expect me to take your points seriously

Playing to emotions? Says the guy picking out random attacks in the last few months as some sort of basis to prove that Islam is inherently violent.
Connection to what? Islam and terrorism/extremist violence are conjoined?

If you are going to say something as overwhelmingly ignorant as “Islam is inherently more violent than other religions”, you are going to have to provide overwhelming evidence and a hint that you have any idea what it is you are talking about. You’ve not even come close to approaching that stage. Posting random information about recent attacks is utterly meaningless. How can you prove that they are in anyway even related to core tenants of the religion they claim to represent? How can you prove that they haven’t been radicalised (might want to look that word up)? You’ve still to answer the question I posed in a previous post about brainwashing and why that would even be necessary in a naturally violent religion.

And no, you can’t talk about nuance, because you’ve not been dealing with nuance. You’ve only been dealing in the most extreme examples, removed all context and then used that as some sort of meaningful example…


The ignorance on display is bewildering.

 

[Tank621]

It's a religion, not some 'controversial topic' for your little debate club. Seriously people get a grip and stop pushing your perverted views onto the world. Just because people are different doesn't make them evil.

Honestly, the fact that this thread has been allowed to exist for so long is an embarrassment.

 

[TexRex]

Why the bloody hell is this thread a thing?

It's a religion, not some 'controversial topic' for your little debate club. Seriously people get a grip and stop pushing your perverted views onto the world. Just because people are different doesn't make them evil.

Honestly, the fact that this thread has been allowed to exist for so long is an embarrassment.

Why the bloody hell is this post a thing?

If you don't wish to engage in discussion of a particular topic, nobody is going to force you. That you don't wish to, however, has no bearing on the wishes of others.

 

[PocketZeven]

Why the bloody hell is this thread a thing?

It's a religion, not some 'controversial topic' for your little debate club. Seriously people get a grip and stop pushing your perverted views onto the world. Just because people are different doesn't make them evil.

Honestly, the fact that this thread has been allowed to exist for so long is an embarrassment.

To be fair the title does not suggest controversy. Also such threads could potentially help people to change their thinking. In history people have acted out many horrors in the religion or ideology. It is bewildering that so many people blame the religion or ideology for these acts.

 

[Tank621]

This thread is a vile cesspit of hate speech and Islamophobia, I don't give a damn it should be shut down

It is an embarrassing stain on the Sim Racing community and I am in total disbelief that this thread has not been shut down

 

[Tank621]

To be fair the title does not suggest controversy. Also such threads could potentially help people to change their thinking. In history people have acted out many horrors in the religion or ideology. It is bewildering that so many people blame the religion or ideology for these acts.

I cannot fathom the reason for this thread if not to incite controversy

 

[TexRex]

Heh.

 

[PocketZeven]

I cannot fathom the reason for this thread if not to incite controversy

I disagree. Without conversation, how can you debunk, disprove, educate people that are misled or believe the wrong things?

This thread is a vile cesspit of hate speech and Islamophobia, I don't give a damn it should be shut down

It is an embarrassing stain on the Sim Racing community and I am in total disbelief that this thread has not been shut down

Get on your head straight. There is nothing wrong with this thread. There is also a chrtinaity thread. Are you also mad about that one?

 

[Tank621]

I disagree. Without conversation, how can you debunk, disprove, educate people that are misled or believe the wrong things?

Well yeah, that's obviously the case. But how is this the right place for that discussion? Everyone here is hidden behind a username and a computer screen, this is an environment that makes a rational, reasoned discussion impossible

Either way, I am not sticking around to find out where this leads, I have said what I wanted to say and I want no more part in this discussion

Edit: and yes there is plenty wrong with this thread I've read two pages and most of it is outright disgusting

And I haven't read the Christianity thread but if it's another thread of people insulting other people because of their religion then yeah I'm mad about that one too

 

[PocketZeven]

Well yeah, that's obviously the case. But how is this the right place for that discussion? Everyone here is hidden behind a username and a computer screen, this is an environment that makes a rational, reasoned discussion impossible

Either way, I am not sticking around to find out where this leads, I have said what I wanted to say and I want no more part in this discussion

Edit: and yes there is plenty wrong with this thread I've read two pages and most of it is outright disgusting

And I haven't read the Christianity thread but if it's another thread of people insulting other people because of their religion then yeah I'm mad about that one too

Who is insulting who here? I did not read the same thread as you are.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You're basing your argument on a guy who openly admired Islam over "effete, meek Christianity" and whose man in overall charge of Jewish death camps stated that Islam is "a practical and attractive religion for soldiers" since it rewarded martyrs in the afterlife?

I was talking about Hitler rather than Himmler. In any case, as Motadel notes in The Nazi Romance with Islam Himmler was giving a speech with a rather pragmatic reasoning - he was currying the favour of the Bosnian division to whom he was speaking. If you've extrapolated that speech to represent the thinking and motivation of Hitler then you've made an unfortunate mistake.

 

[baldgye]

Who is insulting who here?

He probably read the first few pages, which contain some seriously ignorant nonsense.

 

[PocketZeven]

He probably read the first few pages, which contain some seriously ignorant nonsense.

Kind of ignorant then to ignore the other 169 pages?