Islam - What's your view on it?

[Danoff]

I know you don't see yourself as a racist....but your posts very clearly convey that you are. Basically what I'm getting at is that your attitude regarding Muslims (and others I would guess) cannot be explained rationally.

I'm not even sure you were getting at this but... I just want to say... Muslim is not a race.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'm not even sure you were getting at this but... I just want to say... Muslim is not a race.

To be honest, I think the term racism is so loaded its not useful. It's also ambiguous in some ways. Prejudiced I think is more accurate, in this case Predjudiced against Muslims. I take your point though.

 

[Danoff]

To be honest, I think the term racism is so loaded its not useful. It's also ambiguous in some ways. Prejudiced I think is more accurate, in this case Predjudiced against Muslims. I take your point though.

I have a certain about of prejudice against religious groups. I have lots of prejudice about particular beliefs or thoughts. Especially wrong thoughts. Like if someone says 1+1=3, I have a prejudicial response to that.

I'm not sure that prejudice or bigotry is nearly as applicable when you're talking about something that is not an inherent property of the person, but is rather a personal choice.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I have a certain about of prejudice against religious groups. I have lots of prejudice about particular beliefs or thoughts. Especially wrong thoughts. Like if someone says 1+1=3, I have a prejudicial response to that.

I'm not sure that prejudice or bigotry is nearly as applicable when you're talking about something that is not an inherent property of the person, but is rather a personal choice.

Hmmm. Prejudice - Pre-judge: I take that to mean making assumptions about a person based on their proximity to some group (IE: ethnicity, religion, etc) without actually knowing anything about that person.

I don't think your 1+1=3 example counts as prejudice...there's no way you could know that particular thought/belief without knowing that individual to some extent. As you say, it comes down to personal choice...but personal is down to the individual. To be clear, I think it's totally fine to write off an individual based on their individual beliefs. Where it gets wrong to me is to write-off an entire segment of humanity based on some assumption of shared identity when individuals in that segment are all...individual. For instance, most Iranians are nominally Muslim...which means that some people would make broad assumptions about all of them. What they fail to account for is that for many among them, this isn't really a choice.

Basically, get to know someone before juding them. Don't pre-judge, post-judge! Being postjudice is something we should all strive for.

 

[Danoff]

Hmmm. Prejudice - Pre-judge: I take that to mean making assumptions about a person based on their proximity to some group (IE: ethnicity, religion, etc) without actually knowing anything about that person.

I don't think your 1+1=3 example counts as prejudice...there's no way you could know that particular thought/belief without knowing that individual to some extent. As you say, it comes down to personal choice...but personal is down to the individual. To be clear, I think it's totally fine to write off an individual based on their individual beliefs. Where it gets wrong to me is to write-off an entire segment of humanity based on some assumption of shared identity when individuals in that segment are all...individual. For instance, most Iranians are nominally Muslim...which means that some people would make broad assumptions about all of them. What they fail to account for is that for many among them, this isn't really a choice.

Basically, get to know someone before juding them. Don't pre-judge, post-judge! Being postjudice is something we should all strive for.

Well stereotyping Iranians as Muslim would certainly be an unfair-to-the-individual statistical play. And I agree that it probably should be avoided, especially when it comes to an individual. But you know something about someone who declares a religion. Maybe you don't know exactly how they practice that religion, but you do know that they subscribe to it. So at least some bias against religions could be considered inherently postjustice.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

But you know something about someone who declares a religion. Maybe you don't know exactly how they practice that religion, but you do know that they subscribe to it. So at least some bias against religions could be considered inherently postjustice.

This is where you lose me. All you really know about that person if they declare they are Muslim is that they are Muslim. I've known enough Muslims to know that it gives you very little insight into their character or personality. It's such a small sliver of identity in most cases that I don't think it has any utility (sorry couldn't resist, I love that word) in defining them. I think this is especially true for middle eastern people because their origin and their ethnicity and their religion all get tied up in this grab bag of prejudice to the point that many of them feel blanket vilification. The more ignorant the person wielding the prejudice, the more broadly it is applied. I knew people in Texas who considered all people in the middle east as "terrorists" and called them "sand-n******". Of course, I doubt they could even geographically define what the middle east was, who it's inhabitants are, or even locate it on a map. This is the damaging type of prejudice.

Of course, prejudice is human nature...most comedy acts wouldn't even work without some form of it. Just listen to Maz Jobrani...his entire act relies on stereotyping his own ethnicity. Is that damaging? Idk...maybe somewhat. It's where it becomes mean spirited that I think its most problematic.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But you know something about someone who declares a religion.

I'm not sure that's true, there are many many people who tick "Church of England" on official forms but are BMD* attendees, as they're known in the trade. They don't practice and don't necessarily even believe. All you know about them is a little of their national background.

* Birth, marriage, death

 

[Danoff]

This is where you lose me. All you really know about that person if they declare they are Muslim is that they are Muslim. I've known enough Muslims to know that it gives you very little insight into their character or personality. It's such a small sliver of identity in most cases that I don't think it has any utility (sorry couldn't resist, I love that word) in defining them. I think this is especially true for middle eastern people because their origin and their ethnicity and their religion all get tied up in this grab bag of prejudice to the point that many of them feel blanket vilification. The more ignorant the person wielding the prejudice, the more broadly it is applied. I knew people in Texas who considered all people in the middle east as "terrorists" and called them "sand-n******". Of course, I doubt they could even geographically define what the middle east was, who it's inhabitants are, or even locate it on a map. This is the damaging type of prejudice.

Of course, prejudice is human nature...most comedy acts wouldn't even work without some form of it. Just listen to Maz Jobrani...his entire act relies on stereotyping his own ethnicity. Is that damaging? Idk...maybe somewhat. It's where it becomes mean spirited that I think its most problematic.

Well I at least know that they subscribe to a supreme being and at least loosely subscribe to a particular religious dogma. At least tightly enough to call themselves Muslim. If I'm wrong about any of that, they misused the word. I think that's enough to know a little something about someone.

Don't get me wrong, I know many highly intelligent deeply religious people. Surprisingly so. In fact, I know an extremely intelligent person who believes in crystal healing. But I definitely know something about these people based on these statements. I know at a minimum that they're able to support a level of cognitive dissonance. Granted I also prejudge people based on claims of atheism. I just judge them to be at least intellectually consistent enough to have rejected the notion of a supreme being.

I know dumb atheists, and I know smart theists. But I also know something about atheists, and I know something about theists.

I'm not sure that's true, there are many many people who tick "Church of England" on official forms but are BMD* attendees, as they're known in the trade.

* Birth, marriage, death

To the extent that they're lying about "Church of England", that's not on me.

 

[UKMikey]

Just saw this. I showed that this looked at religion as a whole - not Islam. It's basic statistical analysis 👍

Since when do conclusions which don't apply to religion as a whole somehow not apply to one religion in particular?

 

[PocketZeven]

Misreading and misunderstanding facts? Any in particular?

You are misreading again. He specifically stated the unsubstantiated claim that IQ and ethnicity are related. There is no conclusive evidence to keep claiming that.

 

[TenEightyOne]

To the extent that they're lying about "Church of England", that's not on me.

Fair enough, I'm not putting their burden on you

However, to say "but you know something about someone who declares a religion" means that you are able to guess at a number of quite varied reasons why they might declare that religion, none of them determinable without further inquisition, a case which therefore renders the initial "knowledge" useless and moot. Effectively one knows nothing accurate from receiving a single, simple declaration of religion.

 

[Danoff]

Fair enough, I'm not putting their burden on you

However, to say "but you know something about someone who declares a religion" means that you are able to guess at a number of quite varied reasons why they might declare that religion, none of them determinable without further inquisition, a case which therefore renders the initial "knowledge" useless and moot. Effectively one knows nothing accurate from receiving a single, simple declaration of religion.

Well... let's say someone tells me that they like sushi.

Now, they might not. Or they might like only certain kinds (or qualities). They might be mistaken, or they might be lying. But I have to proceed based on what they told me. So, for example, I might assume that this person would want to go to a sushi restaurant. Now, if they were lying, or mistaken, that could be a poor assumption. But it would be an assumption based on what they told me.

So if they have some weird varied reasons why they might declare a religion, that's still on them. All I can do is listen to what they're actually telling me about themselves and base my understanding on that. Words convey meaning. When someone intends to convey a very specific or unusual meaning with a word, they need to be clear about that. Because I'm going to interpret it, based on the context it was given, in the meaning apparently intended.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I think I could infer at least as much, and probably more, about somebody's personality from their choice of car as I could from their stated religion.

 

[Danoff]

I think I could infer at least as much, and probably more, about somebody's personality from their choice of car as I could from their stated religion.

It's all information.

 

[TexRex]

Is it reasonable to assume someone who likes sushi would be willing to beat someone else to death with a fish?

/s

 

[HenrySwanson]

Since when do conclusions which don't apply to religion as a whole somehow not apply to one religion in particular?

The conclusion reached is with regard to religion as a whole - they don't apply to the specific constituents (in this case Islam). See the analogy with the coin as an example.

You are misreading again. He specifically stated the unsubstantiated claim that IQ and ethnicity are related. There is no conclusive evidence to keep claiming that.

There is a correlation between IQ and ethnicity, we just disagree on why that is.

@HenrySwanson
I know you don't see yourself as a racist....but your posts very clearly convey that you are. Basically what I'm getting at is that your attitude regarding Muslims (and others I would guess) cannot be explained rationally. You've fabricated a pretext for your position (statistics) because the underlying reason is probably not robust/defensible. (see previous post)

But so far you've failed to dispute my view that Islam is more violent than other religions, which, let's not forget, is what I actually said.

Show me where I said Muslims are more violent?
---------

Meanwhile, in France:

*LANGUAGE WARNING*

https://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm?blog_id=69096&Je-suis-Mila-French-teenager-in-hiding-after-insulting-Islam-online

 

[Scaff]

The conclusion reached is with regard to religion as a whole - they don't apply to the specific constituents (in this case Islam). See the analogy with the coin as an example.

Odd then that you focus on it, given that the Bible has more violence in it.

There is a correlation between IQ and ethnicity, we just disagree on why that is.

So ****ing what?

Correlation is still not causality.

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

To be blunt, its an utterly unproven link that has no scientific evidence to support it, and is now a hill that only racists pick to die upon.

But so far you've failed to dispute my view that Islam is more violent than other religions, which, let's not forget, is what I actually said.

Show me where I said Muslims are more violent?
---------

It's not our job to disprove it, your view and claim, your job to prove it.

Meanwhile, in France:

*LANGUAGE WARNING*

https://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm?blog_id=69096&Je-suis-Mila-French-teenager-in-hiding-after-insulting-Islam-online

Meanwhile in China, Myanmar, etc.

 

[baldgye]

Correlation is still not causality.

I knew it! Curiously does kill!

 

[Scaff]

I knew it! Curiously does kill!

So does Nicholas Cage's career.

 

[baldgye]

So does Nicholas Cage's career.

...it’s all starting to make sense to me now...

 

[HenrySwanson]

Odd then that you focus on it, given that the Bible has more violence in it.

Huh?

So ****ing what?

Correlation is still not causality.

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

To be blunt, its an utterly unproven link that has no scientific evidence to support it, and is now a hill that only racists pick to die upon.

You're right, correlation isn't causation, good thing people don't create policies based on....Oh wait, that school no-ones heard of called Harvard discriminates based on ethnicity and how they perform on applications..

It's not our job to disprove it, your view and claim, your job to prove it.

So far we've looked at terror attacks and countries ranked according to peace but if we want to investigate the religion created by a warlord to see if it's as peaceful as the others then bring it on

Meanwhile in China, Myanmar, etc.

Weird whataboutism considering I posted about the rohingya, uighyur and Muslim persecution under Hindus and got no such response.... Why can't we address what I posted about this time please

 

[Scaff]

Huh?

Its quite clear. If the conclusion is based on religion as a whole and not its followers, then its rational to conclude that its texts are at the heart of it.

You're right, correlation isn't causation,

Then why do you keep treating it as if they are one and the same.

Let's try some actual science, three Doctors of Science, which are most closely related genetically?

good thing people don't create policies based on....Oh wait, that school no-ones heard of called Harvard discriminates based on ethnicity and how they perform on applications..

And.............

So far we've looked at terror attacks and countries ranked according to peace but if we want to investigate the religion created by a warlord to see if it's as peaceful as the others then bring it on

You seem to have missed the point about it being your claim requires you to support it with evidence.

Weird whataboutism considering I posted about the rohingya, uighyur and Muslim persecution under Hindus and got no such response.... Why can't we address what I posted about this time please

As you seem to be attempting to throw random 'gotchas' in with zero context or explanation, I thought I would give it a go....

 

[PocketZeven]

There is a correlation between IQ and ethnicity, we just disagree on why that is.

No there isnt. Only when you cherrypick "evidence" from probably racist scientists can you substantiate your claim.

edit:

But so far you've failed to dispute my view that Islam is more violent than other religions, which, let's not forget, is what I actually said.

Historically more people have died in the name of other religions then Islam.
What more evidence do you need? The only thing that is correct what you are saying, is that Islam is "perceived" as more violent then other religions.

 

[TexRex]

So does Nicholas Cage's career.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Its quite clear. If the conclusion is based on religion as a whole and not its followers, then its rational to conclude that its texts are at the heart of it.

So you're saying the Bible has more instructions to commit violence than the Koran and hadith?

Let's try some actual science, three Doctors of Science, which are most closely related genetically?

View attachment 886199​

What does that prove? Does that mean all aspects of the phenotype are more likely to be the same between the two more genetically related individuals?

And.............

This should be pretty self evident, I'm not sure why I need to explain it..

If it was merely unrelated correlation, why would one of the top schools in the world discriminate based on scores.

As you seem to be attempting to throw random 'gotchas' in with zero context or explanation, I thought I would give it a go....

No, I think this is a tactic usually seen when talking about Islam.

No there isnt. Only when you cherrypick "evidence" from probably racist scientists can you substantiate your claim.

What?

The studies are numerous that there is a correlation - we just don't agree on the cause.

Historically more people have died in the name of other religions then Islam.
What more evidence do you need? The only thing that is correct what you are saying, is that Islam is "perceived" as more violent then other religions.

Do you have proof of this? Especially comparisons since Islam was founded?

 

[Scaff]

So you're saying the Bible has more instructions to commit violence than the Koran and hadith?

Go back and read when I said, this time without inserting your own words in it.

What does that prove? Does that mean all aspects of the phenotype are more likely to be the same between the two more genetically related individuals?

It means (and it back up by numerous peer reviewed papers) that intelegence us not a genetic trait related to race, as race us an entirely social construct.

This should be pretty self evident, I'm not sure why I need to explain it..

If it was merely unrelated correlation, why would one of the top schools in the world discriminate based on scores.

Rather simple, they are using it for social purposes rather than one based on science.

No, I think this is a tactic usually seen when talking about Islam.

I agree, used by the far right.

The studies are numerous that there is a correlation - we just don't agree on the cause.

Actually science does agree on this, it's not caused by race, the papers have been provided to you, you've just refused to read or understand them.

Do you have proof of this? Especially comparisons since Islam was founded?

Interesting, why do you want to exclude half of the Christian timeline line and the majority of the Jewish one?

 

[TenEightyOne]

So far we've looked at terror attacks and countries ranked according to peace but if we want to investigate the religion created by a warlord to see if it's as peaceful as the others then bring it on

In fairness I watched the news tonight and saw a terrorist convicted of bomb-making and arms collection celebrating with his flag and singing celebrationary songs of jihad in his own language. Seems he stood for election in his constituency and done did well amongst people who sympathise with him and his cause.

I think we should be very worried that it's come to this.

 

[Dotini]

Although I did find this


http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=227087

Still looking for more.

EDIT

And this



It seems there is a creation myth in the Koran, but it is extremely vague. At the same time, there is zero physics involved in the account.

Did you ever find more?

 

[PocketZeven]

Do you have proof of this? Especially comparisons since Islam was founded?

Since I cant go back in time you have more then enough historical record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_..._and_mass_ethnic_and/or_religious_persecution

Why measure since Islam was founded? Why are the deaths in the name of other religions before not relevant?

edit:

Even when you measure from the founding of Islam then it isnt the most violent ideology/religion.

 

[Exorcet]

Did you ever find more?

That's quite a throwback post. I think the "looking for more" might have referred to the second bit I quoted after the edit. 2012 me probably knows more about this subject than 2020 me.