Islam - What's your view on it?

[Scaff]

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

Which has been questioned in depth and shown, in detail, repeatedly and falsifiably, to not exist.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/political-correctness.166413/page-62#post-12606902

 

[baldgye]

Which has been questioned in depth and shown, in detail, repeatedly and falsifiably, to not exist.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/political-correctness.166413/page-62#post-12606902

Holy ****, no wonder he didn't even flintch at my comparison of his argument to that of racists

 

[HenrySwanson]

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


View attachment 880665

View attachment 880666

View attachment 880667

Odd that you missed them.

I'll reply to this since it seems to be causing confusion.

The analogy works as what you have shown still isn't what I stated. Look closely and you can see that it is a correlation in Muslim majority countries between GPI and several variables which are: "Overall Positive Peace Index", "Well functioning Government", "Good relations with neighbours" and "Low levels of corruption". It's basically testing how well these aspects correlate with GPI in Muslim majority countries - not how peaceful Muslim majority countries are.

Please note that when the authors tested religion against peace, they correlated "Level of religious belief" versus GPI.

As I asked for Muslim majority nations and their relationships with peace, this would be shown as something like "Level of Islamic belief" versus GPI - something that is not (as far as I can see) present in the study.

Holy ****, no wonder he didn't even flintch at my comparison of his argument to that of racists

 

[TexRex]

Heh.

 

[UKMikey]

Heh.

I think it goes beyond this, possibly reaching "Ha-ha" level. Global Peace Index has nothing to do with peace? Level of religious belief isn't analagous to level of Islamic belief? Who knew?

 

[Scaff]

I'll reply to this since it seems to be causing confusion.

The analogy works as what you have shown still isn't what I stated. Look closely and you can see that it is a correlation in Muslim majority countries between GPI and several variables which are: "Overall Positive Peace Index", "Well functioning Government", "Good relations with neighbours" and "Low levels of corruption". It's basically testing how well these aspects correlate with GPI in Muslim majority countries - not how peaceful Muslim majority countries are.

Please note that when the authors tested religion against peace, they correlated "Level of religious belief" versus GPI.

As I asked for Muslim majority nations and their relationships with peace, this would be shown as something like "Level of Islamic belief" versus GPI - something that is not (as far as I can see) present in the study.

I've already linked to last year's report, and the largest Muslim majority on the planet ranks higher than the US and the UK.

Guess you missed that....

 

[baldgye]

I feel like this conversation would have been far more straightforward if @HenrySwanson had just been open about his stance from the get go.

He’s islamophobic, and nothing anyone can do or say will change that (something’s he’s demonstrated over the past handful of pages). It would have been far more honest, rather than pretending it was any kind of discussion.

 

[Dotini]

I feel like this conversation would have been far more straightforward if @HenrySwanson had just been open about his stance from the get go.

He’s islamophobic, and nothing anyone can do or say will change that (something’s he’s demonstrated over the past handful of pages). It would have been far more honest, rather than pretending it was any kind of discussion.

By the same token, there is a degree of Islamophilia on the other side of the conversation. Accordingly, conversation can never be productive and must always result in the total destruction and rejection of the losing side.

Back in the eighties when I was deeply involved in yoga, I studied with a group for several years that venerated this figure. We met with him on occasion. So I came to have a very high regard for certain forms of Islam.
Vilayat Inayat Khan 1996

 

[UKMikey]

Islamophilia? Yeah, 'cause one must have to love Islam to want to rely on independently produced research papers instead of random YouTube commentators to support one's argument that religious belief isn't a root cause of human behaviour. Sounds totally legit.

 

[Scaff]

By the same token, there is a degree of Islamophilia on the other side of the conversation. Accordingly, conversation can never be productive and must always result in the total destruction and rejection of the losing side.

Back in the eighties when I was deeply involved in yoga, I studied with a group for several years that venerated this figure. We met with him on occasion. So I came to have a very high regard for certain forms of Islam.
Vilayat Inayat Khan 1996

Nope, I hold the position that violence is very much carried out in the name of the vast, vast majority of religions.

However the individual is still responsible for their actions, and 'I was just following orders' isn't a valid defence from accepting personal responsibility.

I'm also well aware (and as the 2013 report clearly illustrated) that conflight is a multi facited event, which rarely has single cause.

 

[baldgye]

By the same token, there is a degree of Islamophilia on the other side of the conversation. Accordingly, conversation can never be productive and must always result in the total destruction and rejection of the losing side.

Back in the eighties when I was deeply involved in yoga, I studied with a group for several years that venerated this figure. We met with him on occasion. So I came to have a very high regard for certain forms of Islam.
Vilayat Inayat Khan 1996

Without reminiscing on your vast and irrelevant personal history, care to share a few examples of people being islamaphobic in response to Henry’s Islamaphobia?

 

[HenrySwanson]

I've already linked to last year's report, and the largest Muslim majority on the planet ranks higher than the US and the UK.

Guess you missed that....

So that's a no then, they didn't show how Islamic countries correlate with GPI.

And if you'd paid attention to my posts then you'd have seen the statistic where I showed that 80% of the top 20 most peaceful nations according to GPI are Christian and 60% of the bottom 20 were Islamic were actually from the 2019 index. One populous country doesn't really hold much water when talking about statistics (indeed, in the analysis nations were correlated with GPI, with no weighting given to population.)

Heh.

I think it goes beyond this, possibly reaching "Ha-ha" level. Global Peace Index has nothing to do with peace? Level of religious belief isn't analagous to level of Islamic belief? Who knew?

Aaaand this validates my reason for only responding to one of the points raised in opposition.

If this is the kind of response I get for posting an unambiguous, mathematically correct fact, what is the point of debating. It just shows how puerile and steadfast in their beliefs the other side is and how they'll resort to insults and bluster instead of something substantial.

I feel like this conversation would have been far more straightforward if @HenrySwanson had just been open about his stance from the get go.

He’s islamophobic, and nothing anyone can do or say will change that (something’s he’s demonstrated over the past handful of pages). It would have been far more honest, rather than pretending it was any kind of discussion.

See what I mean?

And you're the ones calling others ignorant....

 

[TexRex]

Heh.

 

[baldgye]

And you're the ones calling others ignorant....

No, just one

 

[Scaff]

So that's a no then, they didn't show how Islamic countries correlate with GPI.

And if you'd paid attention to my posts then you'd have seen the statistic where I showed that 80% of the top 20 most peaceful nations according to GPI are Christian and 60% of the bottom 20 were Islamic were actually from the 2019 index. One populous country doesn't really hold much water when talking about statistics (indeed, in the analysis nations were correlated with GPI, with no weighting given to population.)

Which once again for the cheap seats, is a correlation, not causality.

A far stronger correlation exists between GPI ranking and being a former European colony! That still doesn't make it a sole causal factor.

That's OK, it's pretty clear that you have a rather clear agenda. Christianity = Good / Muslim = Bad. No nuance, no other factors, not other explanation is possible, as it doesn't suit you blatant confirmation bias.

 

[Imari]

If this is the kind of response I get for posting an unambiguous, mathematically correct fact, what is the point of debating. It just shows how puerile and steadfast in their beliefs the other side is and how they'll resort to insults and bluster instead of something substantial.

No, it's mostly just that the difference between correlation and causality has been explained to you several times and you're still ignoring it. Statistics can be abused to show pretty much anything you like if you choose to ignore the actual mechanism behind the events. What mathematics is supposed to be is a tool to help give a rigorous grounding to a proposed mechanism, not justification in and of itself for causation.

Your unambiguous, mathematically correct fact is not in question, if we accept that the study it's drawn from is accurate. The conclusions that you've chosen to draw from it are, and you don't seem to be able to see the difference between observations and conclusions.

 

[PocketZeven]

And if you'd paid attention to my posts then you'd have seen the statistic where I showed that 80% of the top 20 most peaceful nations according to GPI are Christian and 60% of the bottom 20 were Islamic were actually from the 2019 index. One populous country doesn't really hold much water when talking about statistics (indeed, in the analysis nations were correlated with GPI, with no weighting given to population.)

You are cherrypicking data here. GDP is much more relevant to GPI then religion. We pointed out the largest muslim country in the world ranks at the top. You start witht the conclusion: More people are violent in the name of Islam then other religions. And then you look for data that corroborates your view. You almost seem like a flatearther.

None of the data shows, without a doubt, that Islam encites more people to violence then other religions. If I stated that Islam is less violent then other religions, I could also easily find data that corroborates that statement too. But is that factually accurate?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Which once again for the cheap seats, is a correlation, not causality.

???

I said:

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.

That's OK, it's pretty clear that you have a rather clear agenda. Christianity = Good / Muslim = Bad. No nuance, no other factors, not other explanation is possible, as it doesn't suit you blatant confirmation bias.

Ehm....

After these posts:

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?

there will be more people justifying their homophobic attitudes because of Christianity than Buddhism.

Same as I believe Christianity is more homophobic than Buddhism.

Where was the outrage, the call for statistics, the labeling of myself as "anti-Christian". I think the absolute silence and then your (and others) subsequent posts on my "Islamophobia" speaks volumes about who's actually biased here.

No, just one

So you'll have no problem posting an Islamophobic post I've made then.

I guess I'm as "Islamophobic" as Yahya Cholil Staqufa, a highly influential Islamic figure in the most populous Muslim country:

Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

Radical Islamic movements are nothing new. They’ve appeared again and again throughout our own history in Indonesia. The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to “Islamophobia.” Or do people want to accuse me — an Islamic scholar — of being an Islamophobe too?

https://time.com/4930742/islam-terrorism-islamophobia-violence/#

Holy ****, no wonder he didn't even flintch at my comparison of his argument to that of racists

Smh, how did this get so many likes. The post it's referring to doesn't even disprove my point

 

[Danoff]

S
And if you'd paid attention to my posts then you'd have seen the statistic where I showed that 80% of the top 20 most peaceful nations according to GPI are Christian and 60% of the bottom 20 were Islamic were actually from the 2019 index. One populous country doesn't really hold much water when talking about statistics (indeed, in the analysis nations were correlated with GPI, with no weighting given to population.)

Can you post that again? Because I'm having trouble finding it. I'd like to understand what makes a nation "christian", and I'm sure the statistic source you posted explains that.

Edit:

Ok I think I found it. Yea no explanation for what counts as a "Christian" or even "Islamic" nation.

 

[baldgye]

I guess I'm as "Islamophobic" as Yahya Cholil Staqufa, a highly influential Islamic figure in the most populous Muslim country:

Literally all Wikipedia has on him that I could find on the English version;

Spoiler: iphone screenshot

No you are islamaphobic because you came into this discussion with a clear agenda.
Your points have been broken down and your statistics shown to be what they are rather than what you wish them to be. Yet you are still here, pushing your agenda...

 

[Scaff]

???

I said:





Ehm....

After these posts:







Where was the outrage, the call for statistics, the labeling of myself as "anti-Christian". I think the absolute silence and then your (and others) subsequent posts on my "Islamophobia" speaks volumes about who's actually biased here.

So you'll have no problem posting an Islamophobic post I've made then.

I guess I'm as "Islamophobic" as Yahya Cholil Staqufa, a highly influential Islamic figure in the most populous Muslim country:


https://time.com/4930742/islam-terrorism-islamophobia-violence/#


Smh, how did this get so many likes. The post it's referring to doesn't even disprove my point

What you said was...

"And if you'd paid attention to my posts then you'd have seen the statistic where I showed that 80% of the top 20 most peaceful nations according to GPI are Christian and 60% of the bottom 20 were Islamic were actually from the 2019 index. One populous country doesn't really hold much water when talking about statistics (indeed, in the analysis nations were correlated with GPI, with no weighting given to population.)"

.... Which is once again correlation with zero causality shown.

 

[Imari]

Where was the outrage, the call for statistics, the labeling of myself as "anti-Christian". I think the absolute silence and then your (and others) subsequent posts on my "Islamophobia" speaks volumes about who's actually biased here.

So your claim is that you've made ignorant and untrue statements on a variety of topics, and that people are biased because they've focused on calling you out only on those that are the topic of the thread?

How does this support your argument, exactly?

 

[Scaff]

Smh, how did this get so many likes. The post it's referring to doesn't even disprove my point

Nearly missed this.

If you are referring to the false claim of a link between race and IQ, yes it does. It did at the time of that thread, and remains so to this day.

If it refers to the equally false claim that people are scared to discuss or research it, then the same applies.

However that's not a discussion for this thread.

 

[MIE1992]

I can't help but to wonder how much of Islamic doctrine is the issue, versus geopolitics. In other words, if you replaced the Muslims in today's conflicts and volatile regions with equally-zealous members of another faith, would it really unfold that differently? It seems to me that plenty of Christians and Jews are able to move past the pretty bad stuff that can appear in their respective religious texts.

I can't imagine that being unstable since the end of WWI would help much, nor being the front of proxy wars between the USSR and NATO. I mean, the US overthrew Iran's gov't in '53, put in a dictator, then when he got overthrown in '79 (and the replacement didn't seem like much of an improvement), we teamed up with Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war in the '80s, and then when Hussein lost, he tried annexing Kuwait, so we turned on him in the Gulf War. It's a mess, really. I'm not saying Islam (or at least, its current state) has a clean record itself (as I don't think any religion does, nor the lack thereof), but I can't say with confidence that Islam is the root of all the turmoil. If anything, radical Islam seems like a symptom of a greater disease within the region's geopolitics.

I'd almost compare it to solely blaming Shintoism for Pearl Harbor. Religion, from what I get, had a part in Imperial Japan, like how Hirohito was supposedly worshipped like a god, but it wasn't the sole cause of why they did what they did - especially when it comes to Manchuria and Korea.

 

[Danoff]

I can't help but to wonder how much of Islamic doctrine is the issue, versus geopolitics. In other words, if you replaced the Muslims in today's conflicts and volatile regions with equally-zealous members of another faith, would it really unfold that differently? It seems to me that plenty of Christians and Jews are able to move past the pretty bad stuff that can appear in their respective religious texts.

I think a lot of it has to do with religious government. Many of the "Islamic nations" of the world actually govern according to the faith. Sharia law. Faith-based government is a bit of a recipe for violence. I think that would be true for a government based on just about any faith.

 

[Scaff]

I think a lot of it has to do with religious government. Many of the "Islamic nations" of the world actually govern according to the faith. Sharia law. Faith-based government is a bit of a recipe for violence. I think that would be true for a government based on just about any faith.

Pure faith-based government tend to be Autocratic to a great degree, and once you start looking at Autocratic forms of government of any type you tend to start getting these issues.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Can you post that again? Because I'm having trouble finding it. I'd like to understand what makes a nation "christian", and I'm sure the statistic source you posted explains that.

Edit:

Ok I think I found it. Yea no explanation for what counts as a "Christian" or even "Islamic" nation.

I think it would have been clearer if I put "Christian majority" or "Muslim majority"

Literally all Wikipedia has on him that I could find on the English version;

Spoiler: iphone screenshot

View attachment 881417

No you are islamaphobic because you came into this discussion with a clear agenda.
Your points have been broken down and your statistics shown to be what they are rather than what you wish them to be. Yet you are still here, pushing your agenda...

So you talk about cherry-picking and then quote research that only looks at British terrorists?

Remember, too, it is your argument that religion doesn't cause violence and it's the people that do so I ask where are the new-to-Christianity/Hinduism/Buddhism terrorists killing in the name of their religions?

Strong religious piety not being associated with terrorism =/= the religion not being a motivating factor - something is making these people kill in the name of Islam and that is my argument.

Nearly missed this.

If you are referring to the false claim of a link between race and IQ, yes it does. It did at the time of that thread, and remains so to this day.

If it refers to the equally false claim that people are scared to discuss or research it, then the same applies.

However that's not a discussion for this thread.

Ethnicity and IQ.

I don't think even @TexRex disputed that IQ varies among ethnicities, although he argued this was due to testing biases.

So your claim is that you've made ignorant and untrue statements on a variety of topics, and that people are biased because they've focused on calling you out only on those that are the topic of the thread?

How does this support your argument, exactly?

What's untrue?

Are you saying if I made "slanderous" remarks against Islam in the "Do you believe in God" thread I wouldn't be called out?

I also made similar statements about Christianity in the

 

[baldgye]

So you talk about cherry-picking and then quote research that only looks at British terrorists?

Actually no, I googled his name, found not much bar some YouTube videos and then links to his Time interview. I then Wikipeida’d his name and found that one article.
I’m not the one who picked this random dude out, you are. The burden is on you, not me.

Remember, too, it is your argument that religion doesn't cause violence and it's the people that do so I ask where are the new-to-Christianity/Hinduism/Buddhism terrorists killing in the name of their religions?

Strong religious piety not being associated with terrorism =/= the religion not being a motivating factor - something is making these people kill in the name of Islam and that is my argument.

Wrong, my 'argument' is that you've failed to substantiate any claim you have made while presenting bad faith arguments and links you've either not read or understood.

 

[TexRex]

I don't think even @TexRex disputed that IQ varies among ethnicities, although he argued this was due to testing biases.

Yeah, so...this is me saying that you don't get to use me in support of your racist narrative without walking it through at great length, at which point you will have demonstrated that my example doesn't actually further your narrative.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Yeah, so...this is me saying that you don't get to use me in support of your racist narrative without walking it through at great length, at which point you will have demonstrated that my example doesn't actually further your narrative.

Being called a racist is so 2018