koti

It's not too late. Saying it is, is taking away my right to leave. Do you like to take away peoples rights Dimreepr?

Where did I state in this thread that I hate people? You better come up with an answer or an apology and you better do it quick because I'm actually taking offence in this. I'm attacking religion and the doctrine of Islam throughout this whole thread and nothing else. I have not stated anywhere that I hate people - Muslims or anyone else. I do get pissed off though when somebody shoves stuff which I didn't say into my mouth, please stop doing it. What I wrote to Dimreepr applies to your above post too. I have not stated anywhere in this thread that I hate Muslims and I take offence in such insinuations.

Well, you're gonna need to try harder to find double standards in my positions in this thread. I would suggest you wouldn't though because so far it's as futile task as finding sense in Dimreepr's sheep shagging post. I would like to point out that you've managed not to address a single one of my arguments in this thread. We keep on revolving around me answering your questions and this strategy is as good against someone with 17 functional neurons as it is annoying to me. I might be the "5th horseman" riding a donkey in the back of the pack but I'm not falling for a dialog filled with silence against my arguments, directed only towards an agenda of catching that one flaw in my posts and using it for basing a rebuttal which would attempt to diminish my line of thought as a whole. Although my donkey rides steadily so far, I would prefer to get out of this conversation before Dimreepr manages to piss me off to a point in which I fall off my ride and give you the chance to use that as foundation to discredit everything I said so far.

Nice dissarming joke DrP. Unfortunately its only semi funny considering the circumstances of the dialog at hand. +1 though.

I've presented numerous arguments in this thread which you failed to adress either by silence, moronic sheep shagging statements or the above ridiculous and unjust insinuation that I hate people or that my stance helps religious regimes. Plus neither you nor anyone else in this thread managed to show in the slightest trace that "Im wrong" You know why? Because its easy to deffend a rightous stance like mine. Youre only left with silence or sheep shagging to deffend your blindness.

Is getting rid of the religion section an option? I myself wouldn't shed a tear.

The notion that Hadiths are not followed by all the Muslims is surely no consolation to the people executed in the name of Islam (not in the name of terrorism) How about you go to Riyadh and try to sell your above post to mutṭawa, we'll see if you come back home.

So? I hope you don't mean that we should respect Islam because there are other horrible religions out there.

In case of religious regimes like the one in Saudi, religion and culture become bonded closely to a point in which there is virtually no aspect of ones life/culture which is not directly or indirectly controlled by it. But still it is never the "same thing, religion and culture are just two different entities. In societies without a religious regime, religion plays a minor role in shaping the society culture. If you live in a religious regime free society you you can always reject religion without rejecting culture. In Saudi you can't. In fact in Saudi, if you reject religion noone cares if you reject culture or not. The penalty for apostasy in Islam is death and this is the key reason why Islam should never be respected by anyone.

On second thought, the fact that I learned nothing is not the worst thing. I might a actually gotten more stupid which is scary.

I got an idea... 200.000 (two hundred thousand) up vote points minimum to be able to post in the religion section. That goes for everybody including the moderators, admins and resident experts.

Today I learned that spending half a day posting in a thread about religion prevents you from learning anything.

Religious regimes/doctrines causing cultural consequences is a cause&effect correlation. A venn diagram does not visualize causality therefore it is wrong to use it to describe a causality relationship. Does that help? If not, I shall further accommodate you with the following causality chart example which should be used instead of a Venn chart. I know it might be a difficult issue to grasp at first but I hope this will make it easier to understand: Arrow from A to B indicates that A is the cause of B :

You have to be kidding...you genuinly believe that the reason for the US to have troups in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq is that "Islam is bad"?

Your interpretation is fundamentally wrong. An act of a religious regime causing cultural consequences cannot be interpreted by visualising it as a venn diagram where the two are overlapping partly or completely. Its just wrong.

Absolutely not, I have not implied that culture and religious doctrine are the same thing. One being the result of the other does not mean that they are the same thing. You acuse me of using a fallacy yet you yourself are using a classic strawman. Yeah well, I think you should train your inner peace more instead of shooting unjustified crap at me (and the poor sheep)

How do you arrive at a conclusion that I support a moronic premise that culture and religious regime/doctrine are the same thing when what I'm actually pointing out is that culture is being the result of a religious regime/doctrine in Saudi Arabia?

Ten OZ I'm referring to the royal family only and not all of them. The ones who had a chance to study and live outside of Saudi are a different breed people - not intoxicated with the fundamentalist, religious regime that is the cancer of their society.

Man, just say it out loud. Slowly.

Do you not understand the difference between the meaning of "religious doctrine" and "culture" ?

No. I'm saying that the Islamic doctrine is highly toxic and that various religious doctrines have various levels of toxicity.

Would you just hold on for a second and address the Tibetan monk vs Islamic doctrine issue which I presented before you go on a tangent with presenting a whole new dimension of Stalin and secular former Soviet Union?

Oh really...so Tibetan monks have the same intrinsic fundamentalism built into their doctrines as Islam and the rest of the humanity like you say? What a bunch of nonsense you're trying to feed me. I would also appreciate if you stop pissing me off with your constant insinuations (my alleged bias in this case)

Well maybe because they are not sticking to the doctrines of Islam aka they are not "true" Muslims. What does not taking victims of war have to do with anything were talking about here?! To be clear, I despise my government stance on Syrian refugees but this has really nothing to do with this thread.

Religious fundamentalism is an intrinsic part of Islam, these two cannot be separated. Terrorism is a whole different issue on its own and it has to be separated from the subject of this thread.