Islam - What's your view on it?

[baldgye]

Erm, but in the analysis that UKMikey posted on the link between religion and the GPI, it found that 21 or the 35 conflicts in 2013 had religion as either the main or contributing factor.

Of those 21, all 21 (that's 100% chief) have Islam as at least one of the religions involved.

Woew I guess you got me, chief!



Oh no wait, you just confirmed everything I said in my previous post...

 

[HenrySwanson]

Is it?

If you have an argument to make in an effort to contradict what I've said, the onus is on you to make a reasoned attempt rather than link to the wiki page of unrelated subject to which you perceive parallels.

It's rather more than a parallel - it's direct evidence that we as a society deem certain groups who promote a belief more dangerous, and worthy of punishment, than others.

Woew I guess you got me, chief!



Oh no wait, you just confirmed everything I said in my previous post...

 

[TexRex]

It's rather more than a parallel - it's direct evidence that we as a society deem certain groups who promote a belief more dangerous, and worthy of punishment, than others.

And these groups are comprised of...what, precisely? Oh, that's right. People. It's the people promoting the belief--one surely chosen or even crafted because it fits their own wants and wills--that are dangerous, and not the belief itself.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

 

[HenrySwanson]

And these groups are comprised of...what, precisely? Oh, that's right. People. It's the people promoting the belief--one surely chosen or even crafted because it fits their own wants and wills--that are dangerous, and not the belief itself.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

I just want to see when you accept that the belief is (even partly) to blame, which is what you hinted at here:

You'd first need to establish this as the actual reason for an individual perpetrating such an act

 

[TexRex]

I just want to see when you accept that the belief is (even partly) to blame, which is what you hinted at here:

And which you haven't done. What's more, I don't believe it's actually possible...which isn't to say it would be too difficult, rather that it's simply not the reason. Ever.

Every man who has ever been guilty of prolicide was a father. That's 100%, chief. What's more, they simply would not have perpetrated the act had they not been a father. Is it reasonable to blame fatherhood for the act?

 

[baldgye]

It's like talking to a brick wall.

A brick wall with confused anti-Islamic graffiti sprayed all over it...

 

[HenrySwanson]

And which you haven't done. What's more, I don't believe it's actually possible...which isn't to say it would be too difficult, rather that it's simply not the reason. Ever.

Every man who has ever been guilty of prolicide was a father. That's 100%, chief. What's more, they simply would not have perpetrated the act had they not been a father. Is it reasonable to blame fatherhood for the act?

What....now you're confusing motive with opportunity.

 

[Scaff]

What....now you're confusing motive with opportunity.

No, he's pointing out that correlation isn't the same as causality.

 

[TexRex]

A brick wall with confused anti-Islamic graffiti sprayed all over it...

I'm concerned that it's not confusion, but malicious ignorance.

What....now you're confusing motive with opportunity.

So you're saying they became fathers so that they could commit prolicide?*

I'd suggest that motive and opportunity exist independent of one another. Individuals in an area where those in power espouse a particular belief system, especially one which has likely been perverted to fit their own wants and wills, by which violent acts are deemed permissible have the opportunity to perpetrate acts of violence without fear of appropriate penalty, and yet countless individuals who bear similar belief have not perpetrated violent acts despite being granted precisely the same opportunity. Similarly, not all fathers murder their children despite having the same opportunity to as those who do.

Individuals who bear the same belief as you, that Islam is dangerous, have acted on that belief in a manner that negatively affects those of the Islamic faith, be it by perpetrating violent acts against those who haven't themselves invited them through their own actions, or even by implementing limitations on what these individuals are permitted to do which aren't implemented equally across all populations. I still say it's these actions which should be condemned and not the belief.

*Of course I don't intend for this particular tactic to be taken seriously. As you are undoubtedly aware, having employed it yourself, the best case scenario is it's used as a means to attribute a strawman argument to the individual(s) with whom you're arguing, as that strawman is easier to contest than what they're actually saying. Decidedly worse is its use as a means to demonize an individual for comments they haven't made and/or beliefs they don't bear.

 

[baldgye]

I'm concerned that it's not confusion, but malicious ignorance.

I think you’re giving the wall too much credit. Though it is an often overlooked Floyd album...

 

[Imari]

So we only blame the person if they commit violence because of a promise of a reward and not the ideology?

If I tell you I'll be really nice to you if you kill someone, does that absolve you of responsibility for murder? Am I responsible for you going and killing someone because I offered you basically nothing to do it?

 

[TexRex]

I think you’re giving the wall too much credit.

I mean...he seems intelligent enough to me (subject to varying definitions as intelligence may be), but he also seems to be acting in bad faith with regards to this discussion.

Though it is an often overlooked Floyd album...

What?! You mean the album with "Another Brick in the Wall", "Hey You" and "Comfortably Numb", arguably three out of the top five most recognizable Pink Floyd songs? That album?

Okay, it's getting off-topic. If we're going to talk albums here, maybe something like Tea For The Tillerman or Teaser And The Firecat would be more appropriate.

 

[PocketZeven]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying the religion is more violent/homophobic. There will be more people killing in the name of Islam than Christianity; there will be more people justifying their homophobic attitudes because of Christianity than Buddhism.

I dont understand your logic quite yet. So if there are more people killing in the name of Islam. Is that the main fault of the religion of Islam? You are suggesting that, the Religion Islam incites violence and logically therefore there should be more violence where Islam is more prevelent? Unless religion is not at fault.

Why do these people kill "in the name of Islam". And how do you know they are killing the name of "islam". And not geopolitical?

If it's in the name of white people (e.g. white nationalism), then that ideology is evil....


OK and?


I'm talking about violent crime in the name of Islam - that's what we're looking at.

So if someone kills in the name of christianity. Christianity is evil as well? Again in history there have been many jews, witches, "infidels" killed in the name of christianity. Probably more then in the name of Islam. Do you recognize a pattern there?

Killing in the name of white nationalism does not mean that ideology did the killing. That is what you are suggesting. I was merely pointing oput the flaw in that chain of thought. People kill people. You are connecting the wrong dots.

Unless Allah is a real person, that commands the people to kill those specific people, the religion is not at fault.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Hindus are continuing their persecution of Muslims in India, ramped up recently by Modi's law that discriminates against Muslim immigrants which has led to protests:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a1039e86-32ea-11ea-83aa-e8f0eae9d133

The crowd scattered and word spread up the street in panic: “Police, police.” While protesters scrambled to flee over the rooftops of the block in old Lucknow, dozens of officers burst in below, raining blows on women and children. The Muslim families cowered from their attackers.

“Take her veil off, check if she’s a man,” one officer yelled, pointing to Salma Hussain, 29, who wept as she recalled the humiliation. The women were groped and officers commented on their breasts as they beat them.


“One man put a gun to my head,” said Tabasum Raza, 26. “He said: ‘Tell me where the men are hiding or I’ll shoot you.’”

More can be found here:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/on-religion/the-violent-toll-of-hindu-nationalism-in-india

No, he's pointing out that correlation isn't the same as causality.

That's a terrible way of showing that!

To be male and able to commit prolicide you have to be a father - it's mathematically impossible to kill your offspring if you've never been a father.
Therefore fatherhood is a necessary condition and it would be mathematically impossible for the statistic to be anything other than 100%.

What I'm trying to show with my statistics is evidence in support of the argument that Islam is more violent than other religions. It was shown that Islam is found in 100% of conflicts that had at least one religion as a contributing factor. That number is not guaranteed to be 100% like TexRex's example. You can conclude then that Islam is over represented, especially since it trails the highest religion in terms of followers by half a billion.

Does that mean that we can safely say Islam is causing more war....meh, not really - but it is more likely when used with other statistics/evidence.

I'd suggest that motive and opportunity exist independent of one another. Individuals in an area where those in power espouse a particular belief system, especially one which has likely been perverted to fit their own wants and wills, by which violent acts are deemed permissible have the opportunity to perpetrate acts of violence without fear of appropriate penalty, and yet countless individuals who bear similar belief have not perpetrated violent acts despite being granted precisely the same opportunity. Similarly, not all fathers murder their children despite having the same opportunity to as those who do.

It doesn't matter that countless individuals haven't perpetrated violent acts, as I explained in the stoning example.

If I tell you I'll be really nice to you if you kill someone, does that absolve you of responsibility for murder? Am I responsible for you going and killing someone because I offered you basically nothing to do it?

No it doesn't absolve me of murder.
If you offered me money then you would be punished too.
Now what if there was an ideology that promised you something far greater in value (in a believers eyes) than money?

I dont understand your logic quite yet. So if there are more people killing in the name of Islam. Is that the main fault of the religion of Islam? You are suggesting that, the Religion Islam incites violence and logically therefore there should be more violence where Islam is more prevelent? Unless religion is not at fault.

Why do these people kill "in the name of Islam". And how do you know they are killing the name of "islam". And not geopolitical?



So if someone kills in the name of christianity. Christianity is evil as well? Again in history there have been many jews, witches, "infidels" killed in the name of christianity. Probably more then in the name of Islam. Do you recognize a pattern there?

Killing in the name of white nationalism does not mean that ideology did the killing. That is what you are suggesting. I was merely pointing oput the flaw in that chain of thought. People kill people. You are connecting the wrong dots.

Unless Allah is a real person, that commands the people to kill those specific people, the religion is not at fault.

I covered this in other posts.

 

[TexRex]

That's a terrible way of showing that!

To be male and able to commit prolicide you have to be a father - it's mathematically impossible to kill your offspring if you've never been a father.
Therefore fatherhood is a necessary condition and it would be mathematically impossible for the statistic to be anything other than 100%.

Terrible would be to posit that fatherhood is to blame, and to justify the position using a single, undeniable correlation, disregarding other factors.

The answer to the question I asked is "No", by the way. I'm compelled to point that out as you declined to answer it.

It doesn't matter that countless individuals haven't perpetrated violent acts,

It does, as it demonstrates that belief in Islam doesn't itself incite acts of violence. Those who perpetrate acts of violence may seek to justify said acts citing belief in Islam, but this justification only flies where people in power have deemed such acts perpetrated in the name of Islam permissible. People perpetrate the acts and people permit (or even mandate, as the case may be) the acts; the blame lay not on belief in Islam.

as I explained in the stoning example.

You offered the example, but an example does not an explanation make.

Incidentally, the King James Bible provides precisely the same punishment for the specified act:

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

No doubt it's a stiff penalty, but belief doesn't carry it out. That falls to...

...wait for it...

...wait a little longer...

...a little bit longer now...

...stamp your feet because you can't wait a second more...

...PEOPLE.

Now what if there was an ideology that promised you something far greater in value (in a believers eyes) than money?

It doesn't absolve you of it. The person committed murder, not belief.

 

[Scaff]

That's a terrible way of showing that!

To be male and able to commit prolicide you have to be a father - it's mathematically impossible to kill your offspring if you've never been a father.
Therefore fatherhood is a necessary condition and it would be mathematically impossible for the statistic to be anything other than 100%.

Its a perfectly good example that you seem to be the only one having a problem with.

100% of fathers are fathers, but that doesn't mean that they are going to kill their kids, or that fatherhood is a causal factor in it!

100% of Muslims are Muslims, but that doesn't mean they are going to kill people, or that their religion is a causal factor in it

What I'm trying to show with my statistics is evidence in support of the argument that Islam is more violent than other religions. It was shown that Islam is found in 100% of conflicts that had at least one religion as a contributing factor. That number is not guaranteed to be 100% like TexRex's example. You can conclude then that Islam is over represented, especially since it trails the highest religion in terms of followers by half a billion.

Does that mean that we can safely say Islam is causing more war....meh, not really - but it is more likely when used with other statistics/evidence.

Do you know how long it took me, using your own cited sources to debunk your position?

Less than five minutes.

Using a source that you said "went into further analysis" that your own sources did, I came across the following:

And perhaps most significant

Note that the last one I haven't made bigger for emphasis, that's the papers own emphasis.

As such you either haven't read these sources, or you are blatantly cherry-picking from them and hoping others will not bother to check them!

As has been said by numerous people you are taking a correlation and forcing a causal link from it, you're not approaching this from an analytical perspective, but one of confirmation bias.

This more detailed analysis even disputes a correlation:

As such it doesn't agree with you on any level at all (correlation or causality), yet you cited it as a supporting paper!

 

[HenrySwanson]

Terrible would be to posit that fatherhood is to blame, and to justify the position using a single, undeniable correlation, disregarding other factors.

The answer to the question I asked is "No", by the way. I'm compelled to point that out as you declined to answer it.

Its a perfectly good example that you seem to be the only one having a problem with.

100% of fathers are fathers, but that doesn't mean that they are going to kill their kids, or that fatherhood is a causal factor in it!

100% of Muslims are Muslims, but that doesn't mean they are going to kill people, or that their religion is a causal factor in it

It's scientifically illiterate. If you showed me that 100% of prolicide was by fathers vs mothers then I'd expect to see further research in the argument that aspects of fatherhood make men more likely to kill their offspring than women. As it is, it is in fact women who are most likely to kill their offspring (58% to 42%), and research has been done that suggests five main reasons including: "altruistic," "fatal maltreatment," "unwanted child," and "spousal revenge".

Going back to the Islam statistics and how it correlates with conflict, the 21 conflicts listed had Islam as a contributing factor - not as just a background circumstance of each region's religion. For example Pakistan and Russia (Dagestan) have a religious element (Islam), yet a few like Sudan (Darfur) and Libya have a Muslim majority but aren't influenced (so say the authors) by religion.

It does, as it demonstrates that belief in Islam doesn't itself incite acts of violence. Those who perpetrate acts of violence may seek to justify said acts citing belief in Islam, but this justification only flies where people in power have deemed such acts perpetrated in the name of Islam permissible. People perpetrate the acts and people permit (or even mandate, as the case may be) the acts; the blame lay not on belief in Islam.

You offered the example, but an example does not an explanation make.

Incidentally, the King James Bible provides precisely the same punishment for the specified act:


No doubt it's a stiff penalty, but belief doesn't carry it out. That falls to...

...wait for it...

...wait a little longer...

...a little bit longer now...

...stamp your feet because you can't wait a second more...

...PEOPLE.

It doesn't absolve you of it. The person committed murder, not belief.

Christians tend to follow the words and actions of Jesus. In the very same example I showed you it is shown in the NT that Jesus didn't carry out the punishment, forgiving the guilty for their sin. If we had evidence that Christians were going around stoning adulterers then we could examine your hypothesis further. As it is I find Christianity more homophobic than most other religions because of its text and contemporary/historical evidence of homophobic acts. If Muslims were to follow the words and actions of Muhammad then they'd see that....well he said this:

'Ubada b. as-Samit reported that whenever Allah's Apostle ﷺ received revelation, he felt its rigour and the complexion of his face changed. One day revelation descended upon him, he felt the same rigour. When it was over and he felt relief, he said: Take from me. Verily Allah has ordained a way for them (the women who commit fornication),: (When) a married man (commits adultery) with a married woman, and an unmarried male with an unmarried woman, then in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and then stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year.

And we know that stoning has happened recently in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Iran....

Do you know how long it took me, using your own cited sources to debunk your position?

Less than five minutes.

Using a source that you said "went into further analysis" that your own sources did, I came across the following:

View attachment 880550

View attachment 880551

And perhaps most significant

View attachment 880552


Note that the last one I haven't made bigger for emphasis, that's the papers own emphasis.

As such you either haven't read these sources, or you are blatantly cherry-picking from them and hoping others will not bother to check them!

As has been said by numerous people you are taking a correlation and forcing a causal link from it, you're not approaching this from an analytical perspective, but one of confirmation bias.

This more detailed analysis even disputes a correlation:

View attachment 880553

As such it doesn't agree with you on any level at all (correlation or causality), yet you cited it as a supporting paper!

That's saying there is no correlation between all religions and peace. I'm arguing about Islam and peace.

More religious, peaceful non-Muslim countries may average out the more religious, Islamic non-peaceful countries. You can see that in the graph where the majority of extremes of higher/lower GPI are found in more religious countries, and the two highlighted non peaceful but highly religious countries are both Islamic. The authors also state that: In 2013 the majority of conflicts with religious elements were based on establishing “an Islamic political structure or introduce or reinforce elements of Islamic law in the country’s institutions or in the form of a state. My rudimentary analysis of the top 20 and bottom 20 also backs this up.

Funnily enough I believe the authors didn't want to analyse this (imagine my shock), and that's why we're given the question: IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES, DOES THE DEMOGRAPHIC SPREAD OF SUNNI AND SHIA DETERMINE PEACE? rather than one asking about Islam itself being a determinant. Chickens!

 

[baldgye]

Christians tend to follow the words and actions of Jesus.

Chortles in Christian history

 

[HenrySwanson]

Chortles in Christian history

Now this is another argument we could have - just look at the suffering of Jews during the Crusades by Christians.

Do we say that the antisemitism prevalent in Christian history didn't have its roots in Christian theology?

 

[baldgye]

Now this is another argument we could have

Spoiler

No it isn't

 

[Scaff]

Going back to the Islam statistics and how it correlates with conflict, the 21 conflicts listed had Islam as a contributing factor - not as just a background circumstance of each region's religion. For example Pakistan and Russia (Dagestan) have a religious element (Islam), yet a few like Sudan (Darfur) and Libya have a Muslim majority but aren't influenced (so say the authors) by religion.

So you are clearly cherry-picking, odd that you didn't mention that when you cited the source as being a more in-depth analysis?

Christians tend to follow the words and actions of Jesus. In the very same example I showed you it is shown in the NT that Jesus didn't carry out the punishment, forgiving the guilty for their sin. If we had evidence that Christians were going around stoning adulterers then we could examine your hypothesis further. As it is I find Christianity more homophobic than most other religions because of its text and contemporary/historical evidence of homophobic acts. If Muslims were to follow the words and actions of Muhammad then they'd see that....well he said this:

'Ubada b. as-Samit reported that whenever Allah's Apostle ﷺ received revelation, he felt its rigour and the complexion of his face changed. One day revelation descended upon him, he felt the same rigour. When it was over and he felt relief, he said: Take from me. Verily Allah has ordained a way for them (the women who commit fornication),: (When) a married man (commits adultery) with a married woman, and an unmarried male with an unmarried woman, then in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and then stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year.

And we know that stoning has happened recently in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Iran....

I have some bad news for you, what you have quoted above is not from the Koran, but from a Hadith, which is quite a different source. The Koran doesn't actually specifically mention stoning for adultery, while both the Bible and Torah do.

That's saying there is no correlation between all religions and peace. I'm arguing about Islam and peace.

They are talking about all religions, including Islam.

More religious, peaceful non-Muslim countries may average out the more religious, Islamic non-peaceful countries. You can see that in the graph where the majority of extremes of higher/lower GPI are found in more religious countries, and the two highlighted non peaceful but highly religious countries are both Islamic. The authors also state that: In 2013 the majority of conflicts with religious elements were based on establishing “an Islamic political structure or introduce or reinforce elements of Islamic law in the country’s institutions or in the form of a state. My rudimentary analysis of the top 20 and bottom 20 also backs this up.

Funnily enough I believe the authors didn't want to analyse this (imagine my shock), and that's why we're given the question: IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES, DOES THE DEMOGRAPHIC SPREAD OF SUNNI AND SHIA DETERMINE PEACE? rather than one asking about Islam itself being a determinant. Chickens![/QUOTE]
That's because they are two quite different interpretations of Islam, far more so than between Christian sects, and yes it does address Islam as a whole, you seem once again to have not actually read the paper. However, given the sectarian history of the two main branches of Islam you would actually expect an analysis of the two separately to show a greater level of violence and a lower level of peace. Looking at them separately stacks the odds against Islam as a whole, not in favour of it.

However, the factors you are now deliberately ignoring is that the paper quite clearly does address this, and covers the far more significant factors that make a difference to peace, those being freedom of religion and the nature of the government of a country. In fact the paper (that you cited as "going into further analysis" than your own specifically state that not one of the conflicts in the study had religion as a sole determining factor!

You're cherry-picking to a massive degree, and now attempting to discredit a source you originally used to support your own argument.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Do we say that the antisemitism prevalent in Christian history didn't have its roots in Christian theology?

Are you joking? The roots are in Jewish theology, that goes (or should go) without saying.

It's scientifically illiterate.

Didn't you try to argue that fatherhood was causative rather than prerequisite for sampling, both very different things?

In the very same example I showed you it is shown in the NT that Jesus didn't carry out the punishment, forgiving the guilty for their sin. If we had evidence that Christians were going around stoning adulterers then we could examine your hypothesis further.

You've tried that before in this thread, I think?

 

[TexRex]

If you showed me that 100% of prolicide was by fathers vs mothers then I'd expect to see further research in the argument that aspects of fatherhood make men more likely to kill their offspring than women. As it is, it is in fact women who are most likely to kill their offspring (58% to 42%), and research has been done that suggests five main reasons including: "altruistic," "fatal maltreatment," "unwanted child," and "spousal revenge".

Mothers aren't men.

Every single man who commits prolicide is a father. As much as you may want to, you can't deny this. Of course that doesn't mean that every father is going to commit prolicide. That must mean, then, that fatherhood is not the reason men kill their children.

Christians tend to follow the words and actions of Jesus.

Army of God.

But even as I point out a group that seeks to justify violent acts with religious belief, I say to you that people perpetrated those acts and that belief is not to blame.

People may attempt to coerce others to perpetrate acts of violence citing religious belief, but even then it is still people and not belief that should be blamed.

Funnily enough I believe the authors didn't want to analyse this (imagine my shock), and that's why we're given the question: IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES, DOES THE DEMOGRAPHIC SPREAD OF SUNNI AND SHIA DETERMINE PEACE? rather than one asking about Islam itself being a determinant. Chickens!

I'm getting a "political correctness" vibe from this, which is to say it seems you're citing "political correctness" as the reason for them not analyzing that.

 

[HenrySwanson]

So you are clearly cherry-picking, odd that you didn't mention that when you cited the source as being a more in-depth analysis?

I'm confused - how is that cherry picking? You wanted me to show the Muslim majority regions that didn't have Islam as a contributing factor in their conflict? Those would be India (Jammu and Kashmir), Libya, and Sudan (Darfur). I don't understand the relevance????

I have some bad news for you, what you have quoted above is not from the Koran, but from a Hadith, which is quite a different source. The Koran doesn't actually specifically mention stoning for adultery, while both the Bible and Torah do

The Koran doesn't, but the Hadith - and the actual actions of its creator - do.

There was no such punishment by Jesus anywhere - He in fact choosing not to do the prescribed punishment, something Muhammad didn't do when given the same opportunity:

The Jews brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from among them who had committed illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet ﷺ said to them, "How do you usually punish the one amongst you who has committed illegal sexual intercourse?" They replied, "We blacken their faces with coal and beat them," He said, "Don't you find the order of Ar-Rajm (i.e. stoning to death) in the Torah?" They replied, "We do not find anything in it." 'Abdullah bin Salam (after hearing this conversation) said to them. "You have told a lie! Bring here the Torah and recite it if you are truthful." (So the Jews brought the Torah). And the religious teacher who was teaching it to them, put his hand over the Verse of Ar-Rajm and started reading what was written above and below the place hidden with his hand, but he did not read the Verse of Ar-Rajm. 'Abdullah bin Salam removed his (i.e. the teacher's) hand from the Verse of Ar-Rajm and said, "What is this?" So when the Jews saw that Verse, they said, "This is the Verse of Ar-Rajm." So the Prophet ordered the two adulterers to be stoned to death, and they were stoned to death near the place where biers used to be placed near the Mosque. I saw her companion (i.e. the adulterer) bowing over her so as to protect her from the stones.

They are talking about all religions, including Islam.

All religions grouped together - read the methodology.

What you are concluding is mathematically incorrect.

I'll show with an example:

if I had a coin that was biased towards Heads and another that was equally biased towards Tails and I threw them equally 50 times each to give 100 throws and got 50/50 Heads and Tails I could conclude that both coins are equally likely to land on Heads or Tails. This would in fact be wrong.

That's because they are two quite different interpretations of Islam, far more so than between Christian sects, and yes it does address Islam as a whole, you seem once again to have not actually read the paper. However, given the sectarian history of the two main branches of Islam you would actually expect an analysis of the two separately to show a greater level of violence and a lower level of peace. Looking at them separately stacks the odds against Islam as a whole, not in favour of it.

Where?

Also, from the analysis of the Shia/Sunni that you insist is somehow meaningful:

Given that there are only 11 countries which met the criteria of greater than five per cent Sunni/Shia minority there were not enough countries to perform a through statistical analysis. However, certain observations can still be made.

However, the factors you are now deliberately ignoring is that the paper quite clearly does address this, and covers the far more significant factors that make a difference to peace, those being freedom of religion and the nature of the government of a country. In fact the paper (that you cited as "going into further analysis" than your own specifically state that not one of the conflicts in the study had religion as a sole determining factor!

Again, it is looking at religion as a whole - see above. And which factors am I ignoring.

You're cherry-picking to a massive degree, and now attempting to discredit a source you originally used to support your own argument.

Ehhm....no I'm applying logic. And if anything it's "acknowledging the limitations" of a study, not discrediting

Are you joking? The roots are in Jewish theology, that goes (or should go) without saying.

Antisemitism from Christians is rooted in Jewish theology? The New Testament is Jewish?

Didn't you try to argue that fatherhood was causative rather than prerequisite for sampling, both very different things?

When?

You've tried that before in this thread, I think?

What part of that (or the current argument) is wrong?

Mothers aren't men.

Every single man who commits prolicide is a father. As much as you may want to, you can't deny this. Of course that doesn't mean that every father is going to commit prolicide. That must mean, then, that fatherhood is not the reason men kill their children.

I was giving an example of when correlation may mean causation. Your example is just a mathematical certainty and nothing more.

Army of God.

But even as I point out a group that seeks to justify violent acts with religious belief, I say to you that people perpetrated those acts and that belief is not to blame.

I'd say it was a problem of the belief if versions of the Army of God had existed in multiple countries for multiple decades committing multiple acts of terrorism. As such I see the belief only as disagreeing with abortion on principle, and only protesting in the vast majority of cases peacefully.

People may attempt to coerce others to perpetrate acts of violence citing religious belief, but even then it is still people and not belief that should be blamed.

It's just hard to believe that everyone who commits violence or prejudicial acts is not sufficiently influenced by a belief that we can apportion blame to belief.

I'm getting a "political correctness" vibe from this, which is to say it seems you're citing "political correctness" as the reason for them not analyzing that.

More like they don't want to question anything controversial - see IQ and ethnicity.

 

[Scaff]

I'm confused - how is that cherry picking? You wanted me to show the Muslim majority regions that didn't have Islam as a contributing factor in their conflict? Those would be India (Jammu and Kashmir), Libya, and Sudan (Darfur). I don't understand the relevance????

You're ignoring every bit of analysis and conclusion from the paper, and taking elements of it out of context to support your position. It's about a clear an example of cherry-picking as you can get.

The Koran doesn't, but the Hadith - and the actual actions of its creator - do.

You don't seem to understand these at all do you?

First, a Hadith isn't a singular, many of them exist, from many different sources and are said to describe the actions of Muhammed that are not included in the Koran.

They are secondary to the Koran (always, that point is not open to debate in Islam at all), and the accuracy of Hadith's is open to question and a massive area of Islamic study.

There was no such punishment by Jesus anywhere - He in fact choosing not to do the prescribed punishment, something Muhammad didn't do when given the same opportunity:

The Jews brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from among them who had committed illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet ﷺ said to them, "How do you usually punish the one amongst you who has committed illegal sexual intercourse?" They replied, "We blacken their faces with coal and beat them," He said, "Don't you find the order of Ar-Rajm (i.e. stoning to death) in the Torah?" They replied, "We do not find anything in it." 'Abdullah bin Salam (after hearing this conversation) said to them. "You have told a lie! Bring here the Torah and recite it if you are truthful." (So the Jews brought the Torah). And the religious teacher who was teaching it to them, put his hand over the Verse of Ar-Rajm and started reading what was written above and below the place hidden with his hand, but he did not read the Verse of Ar-Rajm. 'Abdullah bin Salam removed his (i.e. the teacher's) hand from the Verse of Ar-Rajm and said, "What is this?" So when the Jews saw that Verse, they said, "This is the Verse of Ar-Rajm." So the Prophet ordered the two adulterers to be stoned to death, and they were stoned to death near the place where biers used to be placed near the Mosque. I saw her companion (i.e. the adulterer) bowing over her so as to protect her from the stones.

Which doesn't change the fact that it's not from the core text (unlike Christianity and Judaism) and as such open to debate and questionable accuracy, as are all Hadiths!

All religions grouped together - read the methodology.

What you are concluding is mathematically incorrect.

I'll show with an example:

if I had a coin that was biased towards Heads and another that was equally biased towards Tails and I threw them equally 50 times each to give 100 throws and got 50/50 Heads and Tails I could conclude that both coins are equally likely to land on Heads or Tails. This would in fact be wrong.

And you had the gall to complain about the analogies others used!

Where?

Odd that you missed them.

Also, from the analysis of the Shia/Sunni that you insist is somehow meaningful:

Given that there are only 11 countries which met the criteria of greater than five per cent Sunni/Shia minority there were not enough countries to perform a through statistical analysis. However, certain observations can still be made.

It's almost as if you are cherry-picking and utterly ignoring the report you cited's own analysis and conclusion, which would be odd given you praised its analysis.

Again, it is looking at religion as a whole - see above. And which factors am I ignoring.

In which case you will have no problem stating which of the conflicts studied in the paper had religion as its only cause?

Ehhm....no I'm applying logic

No your not, given that the source you provided, the evidence it provides and the conclusions it draws all undermine the point you claimed they supported, what you are doing is using cherry-picking and quote mining to support your own confirmation bias.

Nothing in the paper supports your assumptions at all, as such its not a logical interpretation of the paper in any way.

 

[PocketZeven]

Now what if there was an ideology that promised you something far greater in value (in a believers eyes) than money?

I covered this in other posts.

So you suggest that the religion Islam promises killers something greater then money?

You keep repeating the same assumption that Islam is somehow more evil then other religions. Your "evidence" is recent killings in the "name of Islam". I argue that doesnt make sense if the majority of Muslims are not violent and pointed out that the violence is more associated to geographic politics. Islam isnt evil, but the people who misuse islam to encite violence (holy war) are the ones who are evil. If muslim people from the middle east are violent. Do you think it is because the evilness of the religion or the geopolitical situation?

 

[Scaff]

So you suggest that the religion Islam promises killers something greater then money?

You keep repeating the same assumption that Islam is somehow more evil then other religions. Your "evidence" is recent killings in the "name of Islam". I argue that doesnt make sense if the majority of Muslims are not violent and pointed out that the violence is more associated to geographic politics. Islam isnt evil, but the people who misuse islam to encite violence (holy war) are the ones who are evil. If muslim people from the middle east are violent. Do you think it is because the evilness of the religion or the geopolitical situation?

Interestingly I did wonder why the 2013 GPI had been used, I just checked the 2019 edition, and Indonesia (the largest Muslim country on the Planet) ranks higher than the UK and US.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjACegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1ZF0Twz_wl51nSix-58zMJ

 

[PocketZeven]

Interestingly I did wonder why the 2013 GPI had been used, I just checked the 2019 edition, and Indonesia (the largest Muslim country on the Planet) ranks higher than the UK and US.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjACegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1ZF0Twz_wl51nSix-58zMJ

Exactly the reference I was trying to point out to @HenrySwanson. Based on that data, which is based on statistics and using his logic, Islam is a religion of peace?!?

 

[TexRex]

I was giving an example of when correlation may mean causation.

No, you presented your cause of choice, disregarding any that don't suit your chosen narrative, and sought to use correlation as evidence to support it.

Your example is just a mathematical certainty and nothing more.

But it's still a mathematical certainty. A 100% rate of correlation. Despite that correlation, it would be irrational to blame fatherhood for a man killing his own child as it disregards other causes on the basis that they have a correlation rate less than 100%.

I'd say it was a problem of the belief if versions of the Army of God had existed in multiple countries for multiple decades committing multiple acts of terrorism.

Why? What's wrong with leaving the goalposts where they are?

AOG has existed where it has for as long as it has, and members have sought to justify their acts of violence based on their beliefs.

As such I see the belief only as disagreeing with abortion on principle,

Still belief, chief.

and only protesting in the vast majority of cases peacefully.

It doesn't matter that countless individuals haven't perpetrated violent acts,

It's just hard to believe that everyone who commits violence or prejudicial acts is not sufficiently influenced by a belief that we can apportion blame to belief.

There's being influenced by belief and then there's acting on belief. Belief itself is benign, and without people to act on it, it doesn't do anything. It just is.

People are to blame for the actions of people.

I had to wait at the foot of the driveway as I left for work this morning because my neighbor was passing behind me. Because of this, I believe killing my neighbor will result in me being less burdened by traffic. If I decline to act on that belief, nothing happens to him by my hand based on that belief. If I choose to act on that belief, I'm to blame and what I believe doesn't matter.

More like they don't want to question anything controversial - see IQ and ethnicity.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

 

[Imari]

No it doesn't absolve me of murder.
If you offered me money then you would be punished too.

But that wasn't the example.

Now what if there was an ideology that promised you something far greater in value (in a believers eyes) than money?

And this is the difficulty. The believer sees the item offered as of basically infinite value. The non-believer sees it as wholly imaginary, and therefore of no value at all.

I think we're on the same page that offering someone something of no value to commit a crime is tantamount to offering them nothing at all. Offering someone nothing to commit a crime is not a crime; they're wholly responsible for their own actions.

So whether you believe that Islam is responsible for crimes that others commit in exchange for what Islam offers depends entirely on whether you believe that these things have value. You seem to. Are you actually a Muslim? Or just a layperson who happens to accept Islamic beliefs as true?

If you truly accepted that what Islam offers has no value you'd have no problem coming to the conclusion that people who commit crimes in the name of Islam are wholly responsible for their own actions.