I don't know why I bothered responding in the first place. Generally I try to avoid arguing with irrational people who are blinded by intolerance but that's what you get whenever you venture into these serious discussions with people who see the world through the eyes of a xenophobe.

Ilham brings up a good point about the irony of your viewpoints.

I think it is very sad that a death cult has over 1 billion followers, just shows how people are stupid. I understand Islam much better than anyone else, since I lived with muslims before, during and after conflicts, and I have seen how they are.

^The voices in your head and imaginary bearded enemies don't count, you know?

I am going to do the same as the wise Troy and be a spectator of the threads in which you post.

Written by Ilham on 23.06.2014 at 19:39

^The voices in your head and imaginary bearded enemies don't count, you know?

I am going to do the same as the wise Troy and be a spectator of the threads in which you post.

Right, since war in Bosnia never happened, right?

Don't care.

Nothing to follow from above but I can darn sure that Islam isn't bad religion. Considering writer of this post has lived in Kashmir for 1.5 long darn years is something I haven't seen anything "extreme" in their religion, senses, deliberation or hate. Yeah, if only you slam someone's door and start knocking out for no reason, they bound to attack. That is the same pragtism followed here. Don't touch their strings and they won't even show frisk of terror. Very genuine people with warm heart and welcome nature. Fights are on borders and those issues are different.

Sometimes, you see while patrolling in night you see soldiers communicating cross borders to other pals. Other times, I've seen they sit and chat like some old buddies met in Pub or something. It happens. You just can't follow your job and keep patrolling whole night like real fucking soldier. Ah, back to Islam. Well, when you see these "real" followers of Islam, they hate both of them. One that has an intention to attack and other who provokes it. Well, I had the wonderful time in Kashmir(apart from minor glitches in starting) and not even a single scratch came onto my body(even I hanged at 1 or 2 in night, screaming and running everywhere).

I'm too busy to get into such discussion right now but will definitely give an answer to this guy in the near future.

I just read a pretty good article on the topic of why there is a lot of violence in the Muslim world (and no longer as much in the Christian world as there once was): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronald-a-lindsay/religion-ethics-sectarianism_b_5521258.html

I suggest reading the entire thing if you have the time (it's not long,) but I'll post the two paragraph conclusion anyway, as it makes a pretty good point:

"One indisputable reason why religiously inspired violence remains more of a problem for the Islamic world is that most Islamic countries have never embraced secularism. They don't have an ethics of natural rights based on secular considerations. They have not yet been driven to the secular solution that European and Western countries embraced after so much Christian blood was spilled in absurd disputes over transubstantiation, papal authority, and so on.

In other words, they have not yet learned that it's a fool's game to try to argue against religious violence that is justified by appeal to scripture by appealing to scripture. Religion doesn't have the intellectual resources to deal with religiously inspired violence. To address religious violence, one must embrace secularism. One needs to think outside The Book."

I am always amused by these neo-atheist fanboys who go on about the "governing bodies" and "leaders" of religion controlling the masses. World religions do not have some all-encompassing, unchallenged power structures. Most of it happens at the level of individuals and their immediate communities.

I also find the quoted article somewhat disingenuous. It is possible that there is more "religiously inspired violence" (if that can stand up to scrutiny) in the "Islamic world" (whatever that is) than there is in the secularized world. But that is not an empirical conclusion, we can pretty much assume it from the phrasing. Whether "religiously inspired violence" is any worse than the "secular violence" that happens in the West is another matter, and it is in general folly to try to extract the "religious" motive from the entirety of social reality. Would there be any less violence in a secular country of otherwise equivalent conditions, and would the people be happier? Or is secularism an unfortunate byproduct of our modernization that went wrong at some point in history? (It probably is.)

But I'm mostly resigned to the fact that I will not find reasonable, educated and original discussion on religion on the internet. It is ironic that the most balanced, informed and least fanatical opinions usually come from religious people themselves. (And I say this as a non-religious theologian with nothing but distaste for unsophisticated or unintelligent people.) I don't think the most secularized Western cultures foster high-quality discourse on religion anymore; there's nothing but populist garbage on the biggest Finnish media. On the other hand, go to Italy or something, and the level rises dramatically. I think it has to do with falling out of touch with religion and simply buying into the neo-atheist propaganda (of embarrassing dogmatists like Hitchens and Dawkins) that is just as historical and contingent as some particular religious phenomenon. At best, they have anecdotal evidence from newspapers and their friends. People no longer understand religion, and worse yet, they are not interested.

I know I'm not adding anything to the discussion, again. But in such a delicate debate, I am afraid I might get too involved and too passionate. But you sir, are making a lot of sense with this ^.

Written by deadone on 26.06.2014 at 02:56

Shame as I am curious as to your opinion.

I have a very nuanced opinion on the subject. Because of obvious reasons. Maybe I should give it a try, on a good day, with nice music in the background and someone performing under my desk.

Yeah but seriously, I don't think you'd find it very pleasant, I would certainly contradict a number of your arguments. But I base mine on what I see everyday, that might actually help you understand what seem to be... quite against though.

Written by Ilham on 26.06.2014 at 03:02
...someone performing under my desk.

I volunteer. So hard.

I'll try not to distract you from forming your thoughts of course.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 26.06.2014 at 03:04
I volunteer. So hard.

I'll try not to distract you from forming your thoughts of course.

The fact you chose to separate the two propositions adds a whole new meaning.

Written by deadone on 26.06.2014 at 02:00

snip

You know, it's quite simple to start listing examples where you can show that religion was bad and evil. It is also easy to do the opposite.
Some examples taken after the ones you posted:

- Thinking modernisation is the product of increasing secularisation is extremely reductive. Protestantism in northern europe is just one example proving the contrary.
- Never met a Christian that struggles to accept the earth is round. Religion is not always stuck in the XII century. Sometimes it is, others not.
- The Renaissance may have started in one place or another, but fact is, it can hardly be dissociated from Christianity in most cases.
- I know some Muslims that don't think polio vaccination is bad. In their minds, if some invisible man wants their kids to have polio, well, they might refuse to do so. Hell, they might even think that the invisible man doesn't want their kids to have polio.



Sooooo, my point is that making never ending lists of examples is boring and useless to generate a debate with substance. It is too easy to turn anything to fit someone's own opinion if that someone is arrogant enough to believe he has the authentic truth. Ultimately, it is desirable to stick your head out your ass when exchanging different opinions...

I dislike discussing "serious stuff" over the internet (and sometimes even in IRL) as it mostly goes like on this thread. There is no substance, incapability to have a "larger picture" and to approach a theme from a macro perspective and not automatically as a for vs. against situation where there can't be shades of grey.
Instead it's all about throwing countless darts to have the illsuion they "win" the "debate" for their personnal satisfaction.

And I'm not refering to anyone in particular. It's just my opinion based on empirical evidence which make me deplore getting too involved in such conversations.

Written by deadone on 26.06.2014 at 03:12

Doesn't bother me that it would contradict me or I wouldn't find it pleasant.
What would the point of debate be if we didn't contradict each other or find some viewpoints "unpleasant"? And if we disagree in the end, it does not matter.
We're not living in the days of the Spanish Inquisition after all and the Earth is round!

Of course, of course. But what I meant is that it could end up being sterile and just irritating for both of us. But it would be good for myself as well, it has been a long time since I haven't had a stimulating debate about it. It might help me give clearer shape to all the thoughts that just roam without order in my head since I moved back to Morocco.

Written by deadone on 26.06.2014 at 04:04

Written by Vombatus on 26.06.2014 at 03:16

Sooooo, my point is that making never ending lists of examples is boring and useless to generate a debate with substance. It is too easy to turn anything to fit someone's own opinion if that someone is arrogant enough to believe he has the authentic truth. Ultimately, it is desirable to stick your head out your ass when exchanging different opinions...

Lists of examples is a remanant of university days when "backing up" one's arguments with examples etc was critical in essay writing.

And the examples are not necessarily 100% proof of something. Of course the Christians have accepted a round earth (now it's homosexuals, genetic research, abortion, evolution and contraception that they defend against in secular countries). And it's interesting how primitive some elements of Christianity get in third world countries where there's a lot of older principles still being practiced.

And it's true a lot of Muslims will gladly accept a polio vaccine. But it's clear that a sizeable minority of Muslims support a religious based society and are relatively intolerant to other religions or even branches of their own (e.g. current Shia-Sunni conflicts in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria and Iraq).

The examples are there as examples to illustrate a point.


To be fair many overt Christians I've met have been reasonably fundamentalist types too who preached hard and would look down on anyone who was a non-believer. Many of them were in Croatia and many were my relatives.

In several cases they were the most extreme hypocrites I've ever met too (drunks and stoners and in the case of my relatives not exactly good Christian souls).


Most people in Australia don't go around trying to spread their religion. I think this is how religion should be - a personal choice not brought on by social pressure or worse, through the barrel of a gun.

Examples are indeed important to back up one's arguments but useless without a proper explanation or substance to use them efficiently. Which was not the case in the post I quoted you before (hence my rant against "battery of poorly thought examples" in my previous post).

But you did so in this one, which is quite nice as you make more sense....

And I doubt anyone here will refute your last line, probably represents the opinion of everyone excluding the extremists of both sides. I still think that too much importance is accorded to the wrongs of religions, always too much generalization, stereotyping, misusage of terms significants and incapability to see it as one of the many factors involved when something goes right or wrong and not the fundamental reason behind it all.
Ironically, this can be applied to both sides... But I guess it is normal to have the same way of thinking when both are ignorants of one another (which for me is the biggest problem when people have an argument over religion).

Written by Rasputin on 23.06.2014 at 19:11

If you are scared of my posts, then you are blind to the real problem. Islam nowhere in the world brings peace, never brings tolerance, never brings freedom and understanding. It breeds murder, torture, hatred, and terrorism. There is not a single place on this planet where the muslims moved to and made it a better place. Everywhere they go, they return it to stone age, which pretty much describes their mentality. Only due to the judeo-liberal lunacy of the Western Culture do people actually believe that any peace could be made and any tolerance could be enforced. And that will bite the West in the end. And yes, I firmly believe when I say "Death to Islam."

How about you STFU instead of proclaiming how culturally horrible countries are that you've never even been to rather than listening to people who actually live their. Actually Islam has brought a lot of good to countries because during the middle ages the muslims were the leading intellectuals in the world, many important mathematicains and scientists were muslims.

Written by deadone on 26.06.2014 at 02:00


The fact that you call us neo-atheists smacks of a lack of respect towards different attitudes and an inabilty to be as objective as you would like your big words to portray you).



Also the statement about "secularism being an unfortunate product of modernisation" shows a complete lack of understanding about the main drivers of modernisation which was increasing secularisation of society.

Indeed things like modern medicine aren't really condoned from a strictly religious viewpoint as illness is viewed as a test by god(s). Indeed some branches of Christianity ala Jehovah's Witnesses forbid certain medical procedures including such simple things as blood transfusions.

The religious types are still against genetic research despite it's potential for improving the lives of everyone on this planet.

But then Christianity also struggled with the concept the Earth is round and had a tendency to imprison or burn people who thought against traditional Christian thought.


The Renaissance started in Italy but it was often in the more secularised parts of Italy ala the Venetian Republic which had a love-hate relationship with the Papacy.

And the industrial revolution started in northern Europe where secularised thought was far more widespread.

Modern freedom is the result of secular thought too especially via the American and French revolutions


And indeed as soon as education levels improve, religion loses it's hold on people (exceptions aside).

One of the few things ol' Karl Marx got was that religion is the opium of the masses.

I am disrespectful because you fail to show any respect or, more importantly, intellectual integrity and nuanced reasonability in your views. But frankly, "neo-atheism" is not an insult - it is a phenomenon recognized and researched by the scholarly community, and it can be fairly easily identified.

1) I don't know what you mean when you say medicine is unacceptable from a "strictly religious point of view." There is no one "strictly religious point of view." There are many points of view, among individual people and particular groups as a given moment in history. The majority of doctors and patients in the world's history have been religious. (And Jehovah's Witnesses are not considered a branch of Christianity - shows what you know, I guess.) There are nutjobs who refuse vaccination on entirely non-religious grounds, too.

2) Christianity never struggled with the concept that the Earth is spherical; clearly your expertise comes from Internet memes or something? Classical Antiquity knew that the Earth was spherical, and Augustine of Hippo (4th century), the most influential theologian of Christianity, accepts it without problem. (See De Civitate Dei, XVI:9). You might be thinking of geocentrism, but nobody was burned or imprisoned on that account. Pre-eminent 20th century philosophers of science Pierre Duhem and Karl Popper, though, have actually argued that Galilei legitimately lost the scientific debate given the evidence and the paradigm of his time. If your only source is Bertolt Brecht's play, it's best not to judge. I don't know where the impression that the church imprisoned and burned people who "thought differently" comes from; burnings were relatively rare in the Middle Ages, and when they did happen, they were often by secular parties (like the Spanish Inquisition, headed by the crown rather than the papacy whose original Inquisition was much more humane and useful, and the witch trials).

3) I am not sure what you mean by secularism. Sometimes you seem to relate it to challenging religious hierarchies (which is the general scholarly meaning) and sometimes you seem to think it has to do with a person's relationship to religion. The former is probably true of Renaissance humanists. To say that the Renaissance was a secular phenomenon, though, is a stretch. The humanist who probably had the greatest influence on European culture, though not Italian, was enthusiastically religious - Erasmus. Neither was the Renaissance some great turning point in Western history - that is a Renaissance and Enlightenment charicature that they liked to present to set it apart from the "Dark Middle Ages" which, in fact, were perfectly continuous into the Renaissance period. Historians have recognized this for about a century now. It is also ironic that the Reformation is very much an Early Modern phenomenon, closely connected to secularism, and yet it's the thing that spawned the most radical and typically anti-intellectual splinter movements that control things like the American media these days. The idea of an independent parish supported by its members and lead by a single charismatic pastor is very much an expression of secularism.

4) Using the French Revolution as a shining example is exactly what I meant above about secularism going wrong. I think most people who know what happened will agree it was a travesty. People were executed for not adhering to the revolutionaries' dogmatic beliefs. The church was robbed of its lawful possessions and people were prevented from practicing the religion they individually wanted. A new national cult of Reason was established. It was a fanatic movement, driven by dogmatic hate against monarchy and Catholicism, not a civilized victory for human rights. Yes, it was connected with the more temperate British Enlightenment philosophy and you might connect it to positive consequences later on, but it was by no means an hour of glory for secularism. Modern France with its emphasis on negative freedom of religion (that is, you are not allowed to express your religion) is not a good example of a civilized modern state that respects the rights of its citizens

5) The hypothesis that education rids people of religion is a dogmatic fantasy. That's not what has happened. Attendance at organized religious institutions has decreased, but at the same time shopping for your own spiritual needs has become dramatically popular and on the other hand, a certain part of society seeks to stick to old traditions even stronger to deal with the rapid (and not always good) changes in scoeity. I am a medievalist, not too familiar with the sociology of modern religion, so I can't go into much depth on this. But there are a lot of genuinely religious people in Europe, and there is no empirical evidence to suggest they're going anywhere. You might say they're not "really" religious because they don't conform to your narrow concept of a fanatic Bible Belt born-again Christian who does not believe in evolution, or an unemployed welfare immigrant Muslim who can't fit in and copes by clinging to his religion for self-worth, but that just shows you don't have a very balanced view of the full spectrum of religion. Marx had an attitude. Just because he had a memorable quote does not change the fact that his theories have failed to stand the test of empirial reality.


I think the bottom line is, you'll find a lot of arguments one way or the other. No matter how diverse the truth may be, there's probably still more shades of gray you have not considered. The key to a fair and reasonable understanding of anything is a combination of curious sympathy and cool detachment. What irks me is that you (and many other poster here) seem to have an attitude that guides your interpretations and makes you attack something with examples that aren't really as simple as you make them out to be. If you're not genuinely curious to understand, say, Islam with all its aspects and different flavors as generously as you can but instead set out to prove some negative opinion you already have, how can we take you seriously? That makes you a politician, not a scholar.

Increasing respect for immigrants' (as well as natives') rights to positive freedom of religion (the freedom to practice your religion, as opposed to freedom from religion) would not lead to tighter moral control on you; not at least as long as pluralism is embraced and the whole spectrum of society is represented. If anything, the freedom for anyone to live out their lives as they want, in public as well as privately, should make tolerance a practical necessity because everyone's getting something out of it. (It might create personal tensions, of course - but things like Muslim holidays at work are entirely fine by me, if they make up for them by working on an equal number of Christian holidays or something. When you choose to celebrate really shouldn't be an issue.)

I just don't understand the hostility in public discourse against religious motives in politics; they're motives like any other, and in a democracy we're not supposed to scrutinize why someone votes the way they do. Maybe support homosexual marriage because they don't want unnecessary legal distinctions or maybe they support it because they believe God created everyone equal and deserving to be loved (certainly a stance real people have) - it does not really matter what their motive is. As long as we subscribe to a democractic society, it's the majority opinion (tempered with expert judgement on things like the constitution and human rights) that determines what goes on. You can't just shut out 50% of the population because they're too religious for your tastes.

And yeah, your university lecturers probably were wrong about the Renaissance and Middle Ages, unless they were renowned medievalists. I mean, it's one of the more stubborn myths of history, but it has been challenged at least for a hundred years now in the academia. It lives on through immensely popular and influential but outdated works like Jacob Bruckhardt's. If the Middle Ages were dark, it's only because the Renaissance and Enlightenment painted them so and because we've known next to nothing about it - given that much its source material is still lying in archives, uncatalogued and in handwriting and abbreviated Latin that few can read (as opposed to the widely edited and originally printed works of Classical Antiquity and Early Modern Era, respectively), it's no surprise people still don't know a whole lot about it. But really, if ever there was a period where religion made an impact for the better and which we can draw on for perspective on the modern world, it's the Middle Ages (granted, I am a medievalist like I said). Descartes certainly was a hack who contributed a lot, but mostly by virtue of his popularity and novel presentation of old ideas (much like Renaissance humanists, you'll note that he himself likes to stress how original he is to create the illusion; not unlike Kant, by the way, though obviously the latter is an intellectual giant). In fact, Early Modern philosophy lost sight of some pretty central topics of medieval philosophy that set it back in some areas (especially logic) until the 20th century. Rousseau's influence has mostly been negative, I think, and I'm not sure what the Christian Deist Locke has to do with secularism.

Written by deadone on 25.06.2014 at 01:45

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 23.06.2014 at 20:25

Nothing to follow from above but I can darn sure that Islam isn't bad religion.

The problem with Islam is that it's societies have not shoved it in the closet.

Yes. Damn right.

Actually, new generation isn't gentle to accept the outlines of Islam principles. Education has brodened the mind of muslims. Let me honest out here, either it's one of those young people who're staunch about Islam and act normal or guys who're angry, pissed off and be like "it's Islam or nothing" stand view. For me, both are disillusional. Rich Muslims are breaking the boundary and letting their young daughters and sons to get out of the house and explore life while middle and lower class Kashmir-es divided into getting quality education and start building empire or domesticated in house for whatever reasons they believe in. It's all about GOOD EDUCATION- fireball burning out here to be honest. Handful of people have close mindset and thinks about spreading terrorism but are living in minority. Otherwise, that shit wore out of Kashmir way back. I've heard(just heard) that sometimes they get orders to put their young sons to join militancy and continue Jihad which again for me is bullcrap. But, parents have started worrying about their wards' career. I don't know if Islam has something to do get bad patches from terrosim or not. But, again people believe in it.

It's true that just like privatisation and globalisation boomed in India in 1991, here people are getting out of the system and believing in freedom which I'm afraid wasn't existed before. They're now accepting westernization and living life just like any foreigner lives.

Deadone, you asked me a few questions. I was getting around to them. But I see you deleted them. I'm here .

Written by deadone on 30.06.2014 at 05:11

The post about how is Morrocco is still there!

I think I didn't have eyes turned on when I said that. Sorry.

Written by IronAngel on 27.06.2014 at 11:45

Early Modern philosophy lost sight of some pretty central topics of medieval philosophy that set it back in some areas (especially logic) until the 20th century. Rousseau's influence has mostly been negative, I think, and I'm not sure what the Christian Deist Locke has to do with secularism.

But actually modern philosophy is all about being no centralized, they're deprived of a center in nature, like what Nietzsche says : "God is dead" . Some interpreted god is a metaphor of center, and the center is deprived of human's life and mind, god here is not just a religious figure.

And really ? Rousseau influences was negative ? why ?! Locke has nothing to do with secularism ? but isn't he one of those first scholars who suggested empirical way of thinking rather than imposing things to people ?

However, I asked all these out of my curiosity, I got your point somehow, still I loved to discuss these things that I asked above though I know they're not that relevant to the whole thing you were discussing here.

Written by angel. on 30.06.2014 at 20:45

Written by IronAngel on 27.06.2014 at 11:45

Early Modern philosophy lost sight of some pretty central topics of medieval philosophy that set it back in some areas (especially logic) until the 20th century. Rousseau's influence has mostly been negative, I think, and I'm not sure what the Christian Deist Locke has to do with secularism.

But actually modern philosophy is all about being no centralized, they're deprived of a center in nature, like what Nietzsche says : "God is dead" . Some interpreted god is a metaphor of center, and the center is deprived of human's life and mind, god here is not just a religious figure.

And really ? Rousseau influences was negative ? why ?! Locke has nothing to do with secularism ? but isn't he one of those first scholars who suggested empirical way of thinking rather than imposing things to people ?

However, I asked all these out of my curiosity, I got your point somehow, still I loved to discuss these things that I asked above though I know they're not that relevant to the whole thing you were discussing here.

"Modern philosophy" is a pretty varied field, and not even only between the dichotomy of the "continental" and "analytical" schools. Nietzsche isn't exactly a modern academic - I'd go for Quine, Kripke, Searle, Goldman for relevant philosophers representative of the current field. In any case, with the exception of Leibniz, logic did not really advance (in fact, it regressed) since Descartes until Frege and Russel.

Locke was thoroughly religious, and that's why I criticized using him as an example of progressive secularism. He thought the existence of God was a demonstrable truth, he wrote a commentary the epistles of Paul, and he based his moral theology on Natural Law, in other words (his words), the will of God. Certainly he was an individualist and wanted to separate the spheres of faith and reason, but that made him no less Christian and it certainly wasn't new - that's more or less the via moderna programme of the 14th century scholasticism, simply with different emphasis.

I imagine we could debate Rousseau's influence. But assuming his political philosophy did have a direct impact, it does not seem to me a positive one. He espoused totalitarian collectivism thinly veiled by the supposed freedom of the "general will", after all. He has been taken to be an ideological influence behind the more extreme developments of the French revolution and fascism. (I doubt that a single thinker would have such decisive impact, but that goes for his positive influence as well; surely he has a lot to answer for before he can take credit.)

My point was, however, that many Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers had an agenda that caused them to tarnish the reputation of preceding centuries and their religious "darkness", which does not stand up to scrutiny. Intellectual life in the Middle Ages was lively and diverse, and there was rarely very tight control imposed on academics. Even when deviant intellectuals were condemned for their opinions (and it happened primarily for theological and moral questions, not regarding other sciences), they could usually go on writing. At worst, if their University didn't want to shelter them, they'd have to move somewhere else. People like Giordano Bruno are so famous because they were the exception - and he wasn't executed for his Copernican theories but for running around Europe stirring trouble, writing about magic, and ignoring lawful injunctions. The various periods within the Middle Ages, like any other age, had their particular historical contingencies and universal constants, and they were not categorically better or worse than the 16th or 18th centuries, for example. Moreover, "religion" does not work in a single direction in any society, but rather it's a dimension that pervades most aspects of most people's lives in a multitude of permutations. It would be equally correct to say that Christianity was the cause for human rights thought in the 14th century and that Christianity was the reason for Cathar persecutions. But both are such general statements (whose Christianity, in what way, when, and why?) that they're not really worth much.

Deadone: I do not think things were better in the Middle Ages. That would be pretty naive. But as a historian I do think we should be aware of our limited perspective and give credit to the societies and people of the past who adapted to their particular circumstances and probably did it much better than we now think. To think that there was at some point a dark age of religious oppression and stagnation not only ignores what the sources themselves represent, but also underestimates the people who, if evolutionary biology is anything to go by, were potentially just as intelligent as we are.

As for your comment on the demographics: I think you exaggerate. Why would that happen in a modern society? Especially if your theories of secularism are true, these religious fundamentalists should become secularized when they make a place for themselves in society. But in the hypothetical situation that fundamentalist Muslims did take over society democratically, how can you object to that and still hold onto our values of civilized, democratic society? If they do achieve the support necessary for changing your constitution, aren't you required to accept that? Rousseau and Locke would certainly say so.

One question to ask is, is a focus individual freedom actually better? You're tying secularism to individualism, but it should be noted that it can bed aruged that individualist cultures are actually worse off for the average individual because they lack social support, for example mental illness is much, much more rampant in individualist societies as a result. While religions often place less emphasis on personal freedom, they also put more focus on doing more to help others. It's not black and white at all.

Alright guys this conversation is now happening right over here.

Let's keep this thread specifically about Islam - if you want to talk about religion in a broader sense then you should check out the above link.

Written by Ganondox on 26.06.2014 at 07:51

Written by Rasputin on 23.06.2014 at 19:11

If you are scared of my posts, then you are blind to the real problem. Islam nowhere in the world brings peace, never brings tolerance, never brings freedom and understanding. It breeds murder, torture, hatred, and terrorism. There is not a single place on this planet where the muslims moved to and made it a better place. Everywhere they go, they return it to stone age, which pretty much describes their mentality. Only due to the judeo-liberal lunacy of the Western Culture do people actually believe that any peace could be made and any tolerance could be enforced. And that will bite the West in the end. And yes, I firmly believe when I say "Death to Islam."

How about you STFU instead of proclaiming how culturally horrible countries are that you've never even been to rather than listening to people who actually live their. Actually Islam has brought a lot of good to countries because during the middle ages the muslims were the leading intellectuals in the world, many important mathematicains and scientists were muslims.

How do you know where I have been to or not?
LMAO, really, what has it brought, and which countries? I'll give you that they did well with math, but the burning question is, what did they do since then? I can definitely see a great technological advancement from the middle ages to know in the Islam controlled countries. Instead of decapitation, burning and stoning, we can use and AK-47 to divorce the wife. Very advanced...

Written by Rasputin on 25.09.2014 at 06:51

Written by Ganondox on 26.06.2014 at 07:51

Written by Rasputin on 23.06.2014 at 19:11

If you are scared of my posts, then you are blind to the real problem. Islam nowhere in the world brings peace, never brings tolerance, never brings freedom and understanding. It breeds murder, torture, hatred, and terrorism. There is not a single place on this planet where the muslims moved to and made it a better place. Everywhere they go, they return it to stone age, which pretty much describes their mentality. Only due to the judeo-liberal lunacy of the Western Culture do people actually believe that any peace could be made and any tolerance could be enforced. And that will bite the West in the end. And yes, I firmly believe when I say "Death to Islam."

How about you STFU instead of proclaiming how culturally horrible countries are that you've never even been to rather than listening to people who actually live their. Actually Islam has brought a lot of good to countries because during the middle ages the muslims were the leading intellectuals in the world, many important mathematicains and scientists were muslims.

How do you know where I have been to or not?
LMAO, really, what has it brought, and which countries? I'll give you that they did well with math, but the burning question is, what did they do since then? I can definitely see a great technological advancement from the middle ages to know in the Islam controlled countries. Instead of decapitation, burning and stoning, we can use and AK-47 to divorce the wife. Very advanced...

Because it's extremely obvious you haven't because what you said is so incredibility ignorant.

The scientific method itself was created by an islamic scholar, it wasn't just math, but the foundation of modern scientific knowledge. Anyway, plenty of Islamic countries have made plenty of technological advance, you just seem to think muslims just live in the sand of something.

"nstead of decapitation, burning and stoning, we can use and AK-47 to divorce the wife. Very advanced..." Because all Islamic countries are just full of men with AK-47s killing their wives. You can't judge all of Islam based on Afghanistan, a country ruled by warlords.

Written by deadone on 25.09.2014 at 10:19

Written by Ganondox on 25.09.2014 at 10:08


The scientific method itself was created by an islamic scholar, it wasn't just math, but the foundation of modern scientific knowledge. Anyway, plenty of Islamic countries have made plenty of technological advance, you just seem to think muslims just live in the sand of something.

The only Islamic technological "advances" I've seen is the Pakistani nuclear weapons program and Iran reverse engineering some 1970s US military tech.

Islamic world is certainly not creating too many medical, consumer, engineering or even pop culture advances.* In fact in recent times their main cultural export has been violent disenfranchised religious nutbags with an axe to grind.



*Though it's clear some Muslims working in the West are doing these things. The Islamic countries are not. Even Indonesia and Malaysia aren't some sort of innovators.

Quote:
You can't judge all of Islam based on Afghanistan, a country ruled by warlords.

You can't judge all of Islam based on scientific advances made a thousand years ago.

Okay, how many countries can you name, period, that are large suppliers of pop culture and technological innovations to the west? It's not because of Islam that none of those countries are predominantly Islamic.

Written by Ganondox on 25.09.2014 at 11:18

I am going to do you the same favour people have done for me and tell you not to bother with Rasputin who's a crazy ass islamophobe and homophobe - and surely many other nouns that end in "-phobe" - of the worst kind, who has no ability to debate without throwing blanket generalisations and just plain insults.

Written by Ganondox on 25.09.2014 at 11:18

Written by deadone on 25.09.2014 at 10:19

Written by Ganondox on 25.09.2014 at 10:08


The scientific method itself was created by an islamic scholar, it wasn't just math, but the foundation of modern scientific knowledge. Anyway, plenty of Islamic countries have made plenty of technological advance, you just seem to think muslims just live in the sand of something.

The only Islamic technological "advances" I've seen is the Pakistani nuclear weapons program and Iran reverse engineering some 1970s US military tech.

Islamic world is certainly not creating too many medical, consumer, engineering or even pop culture advances.* In fact in recent times their main cultural export has been violent disenfranchised religious nutbags with an axe to grind.



*Though it's clear some Muslims working in the West are doing these things. The Islamic countries are not. Even Indonesia and Malaysia aren't some sort of innovators.

Quote:
You can't judge all of Islam based on Afghanistan, a country ruled by warlords.

You can't judge all of Islam based on scientific advances made a thousand years ago.

Okay, how many countries can you name, period, that are large suppliers of pop culture and technological innovations to the west? It's not because of Islam that none of those countries are predominantly Islamic.

Sharia Law is their greatest invention, on top of Koran which is perfect in every single syllable and word, influenced by a cult leader Mohammad who was hugged by an angel 3 times, listen to Satan for a little while, and managed to convince God as to the correct number of prayers that should be done each day. Seems legit.

I am still waiting for you to list me these great technological advancements in the last 700 years, and these countries that are so high tech and great, that are predominately muslim.

@Morrocan attention whore
Nice, love you to baby kiss