Iota

I'm not attempting to convince you, I'm posing a question which it seems several members are also interested or concerned about. Seeing as you're just another user like me, feel free to ignore my query so that it can be answered by someone more appropriate who isn't just another user like me. But remember: No. Public. Site. Is. Private.

If that's the official position of scienceforums.net then I suppose that is that, then, isn't it. As you hold no corporate interests or responsibility in that sense, it may not be in your interest to provide your users with peace of mind or the option to opt out of being associated with your site. I can think of many reasons as to why somebody might no longer want their email address attached to one of their old accounts. The reason as to "why" someone wishes to leave seems redundant from a user-friendliness perspective. Also, if it is possible then "why not?" also comes to mind. Too much effort, I guess? Just seems bizarre that people can never leave.

Surely it would be an option to allow users to delete their accounts without deleting their posts and answers. I'm sure other websites manage this; it just means said user's profile is no longer viewable and their email isn't plugged into the website and linked to the account.

You're a mong

Evil is a subjective term, but by no means a default emotive. There's nothing wrong with my use of a subjective term in there, because I interjected a new point, clearly expressed as my opinion. You are the one who's erected a straw man here. Consider revising your definitions, before throwing them around wrongly and at random, and wrongly dismissing others' arguments purely on that basis.

Absolutely correct. You caught me, please keep this discussion as Islamophobic as possible and let's hope you geniuses don't catch on.

Quite, and I agree completely. The problem is far from just Islam, and far from just religion. The reason I wanted to discuss Islam is because at present Islam is as radical as Christianity was generations ago. So I'm looking to discuss how it will integrate with modern Western society. As for the rest of what you've said, I completely agree also.

Nope, I'm trying to explore the effect Islam has had in those countries, to do with the way they are. It's different.

It's clear this discussion can't go on any further; other than what I've said there's nothing else for me to say. As I said before, I politely retire from this topic. Not angrily or lashing out as iNow sees it.

You don't want to look at the original topic, as I suggested. Fair enough... I'll bring it to you: Now, stay with me here. I did mention "Islamic population", but I assure you, the factor is Islam. That was my intent. YES, my intent may not have come across, that happens. Yes, you might not accept Islam as a factor as I'm trying to, if not, just say so. Now I hope not to cause offence here, as you're one of the members I regard highly and respect on these forums; but just in case you missed that again: Islam.

Look at the original topic for a second please; it's calling for a discussion on Islam... 'per se'. Just because others have changed it from that, and I've had to reply to them, doesn't mean I made that the new topic. I never boiled it down to that. Someone else introduced it, I merely responded to it. That was in no way my discussion. The problem is every time someone throws an argument my way, someone else sees my response, and out of context sees my response and makes a million assumptions about what I've said or believe. By ALL means have a much more in-depth discussion, it's other people narrowing it down to specific points I've made. I started a very broad topic, which others have chipped away and narrowed down with their wild assumptions. Stop looking at individual examples, the teachings of Islam and implementation of Islamic teaching is what I'm asking to be considered. Stop picking out individual countries, individual practices, and saying "well Islam isn't the only factor preventing women's rights"... So what!?!?!? My discussion's whole purpose is to discuss the factor of Islam. I don't assume there aren't other factors, it's just I'm not discussing them right now. I'm not distilling it down to one factor, I'm FOCUSING on one factor. If you don't see the value in that, by all means explain why, but don't assume I haven't considered other factors. It has to be said this is the most exhausted I've been on these forums trying to get a simple discussion started. I retire from this discussion, not out of anger; because it's not going anywhere any time soon. I fell into the trap of responding to people who went off-topic, then everyone else fell for the trap of reading my responses, instead of the original topic. Madness. I'm done ladies and gents, feel free to carry on discussing, but I won't be, because I feel discouraged to do so.

Well I see why you're confused. You've assumed when I say Islam that I mean "all Muslims" or when I refer to a particular Islamic state that I mean "every Muslim in that state". When I say Islam, I mean the teachings of Islam, the governments under Islam. I'm stunned at how quick and comfortable everyone feels- assuming that I have some vendetta against every Muslim and that I'm trying to throw Muslims in one category, even though I haven't stated or implied anything of such. Suspect me of doing so- that's fine. But when you instantly jump to the conclusion that- that's what I'm doing, you're being rather ridiculous. Can we just put forward our opinions on the discussion topic and stop trying to accuse me of generalising and having some sort of vendetta against all Muslims, based on your whims? I welcome criticism of me or my arguments- I don't welcome what you're doing right now.

Sure enough there are those trying to impose Christian law, but Christian law isn't by default or without question the system in place in the US. Nor has that ever been the case in the US, thanks to your Bill of Rights. Whereas in UAE and Dubai the opposite is the case. Fair enough, however; 'by how many generations the US is more advanced or enlightened in comparison' wasn't my point. It's comparing each country as it is today, with particular focus on the key variable of this discussion; Islam, which was my point. The legal system is always going to be unjust, in any country, but I'm obviously talking about the Islam's part to play in that; my point being that if our legal systems jump back to the current Islam-style courts of justice, seen in these Islamic countries, it'd be a jump back, not forward. Oh sorry, in that case: no.

Don't expect citations for something which I've clearly expressed as an opinion. Make note of the words I've highlighted in bold, I've done that for you. So take not of "on the whole". I never said Islam was exclusive with that respect. In summary, read what I've said before emptily attempting to debunk everything I say based on technicalities, as though you're achieving anything besides derailing this discussion by doing so.

A very good point. I agree right-wing nuts are probably more dangerous and common, but I welcome neither to my discussions, and I've possibly encountered the left-wing of the scale already; hence my mentioning of it. Well then I simply disagree, Islam, on the whole, is far more radical today than what Christianity is. Christianity is still benign in comparison to Islam. Christianity originates predominantly in Western, progressive, advanced cultures and societies, like EU, USA, most of the commonwealth. On the whole the harm caused by Christianity is belittled are far less shocking than Islam. If you disagree, then I simply have to disagree in return on that point. Yes I guess I haven't stabbed at the core root of the real problems with my question, but I'm looking at what's happening right now, and whether it's realistic in the short term to integrate Islam in with Western societies, given its rapid growth in such areas. I don't see capitalism being overthrown or a widespread revolution coming, so as for the poverty matter, I don't know. But I can't see it improving a great deal. As for a lack of education and among other things these countries are deprived of, I personally think it's fair to blame Islam in part for that; where little girls wanting an education are being shot in the head, and the very nature of religion in its ability to deter people from learning and advancing, instead clinging to the fixed dogmatic views of their interpretation of holy books.

By educated opinion I simply meant an opinion backed up by some reason and knowledge, which is what you've done. So thanks! I can't really speak on many of the countries that you've listed, but I think you've made a good point by naming them. I suppose wealthy Islamic countries would be the first place to look if you want to get an idea of how Islam and Western countries might coexist in the near future. As it would be slightly unfair to only look at the most radical and extreme Islamic countries. My only objection to that, is that there is significant immigration from the poorer more extreme Islamic countries into Western countries, and some of them do carry their radical beliefs with them. I'll pick the UAE out of the list, because I know a little about it and I agree that it is an example of a 'wealthy Islamic nation', as we're on the topic. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/07/2013722133556357619.html The UAE still enforces sharia law, still has an unjust legal system, and still has many prejudices against women, and women are still oppressed. These are in direct conflict with typical Western principles. That goes for Dabai too. I think you've brought up some important considerations here oz. Thanks for that worthless, arrogant, presumptive contribution to this discussion. Nevertheless I'm glad to see that my message is getting through to the right people.

Feel free to point out what, if anything I've oversimplified. I beg you. Your ambiguity seems ironically rather similar to oversimplification in its nature.

Well I suppose I'm appealing for people to approach the question, with recognition that Christianity and Islam do behave significantly differently in the World at present, with one being far more benign than the other respectively, with regard to some of the specifics I exampled in my second post. The premise isn't at all false, you've merely misunderstood my point which I though I'd made clear. Perhaps I should've said 'relatively benign', but I thought that was implied when I also said in the same sentence 'watered down' and 'Westernised'. If that was not clear then I apologise, I hold Christianity in as much contempt as I do Islam, however the presence of Christianity in the World compared to that of Islam is irrefutably relatively benign. And while I have cleared my throat, I put it to you that also nowhere did I state or even imply that Christianity is now perfect in any sense, and common sense should've lead you to realise that I didn't mean that, based on the rest of the paragraph. For some reason you jumped to assuming I meant Christianity is perfect and Islam isn't?

A fair point, despite the facetious ending and slightly defensive vibe I got from it; all too common whenever the topic of criticising or showing concerns towards Islam arises. I know several Muslims, non of which I can call close friends (incidentally not out of deliberation), and I grew up closely with several Hindi and Muslim children primarily (as you do living in or around the London area), to none of whom did or do I have any aversions towards. Let's get this out the way quickly for the sake of having a constructive and forward moving discussion: I did not create this topic to induce ignorant fearmongering against religious minorities of ANY religious persuasion. When I say Islam, I'm using its sincerest definition; i.e. the religion; not a synonym for brown people or middle-eastern minorities. 'Islamophobic' is not a valid argument, nor is anything along those lines. If you're a left-wing nut or someone who's hypersensitive on behalf of Islam or offended by any rightful, rational discussion which includes criticism and concerns over Islam THE RELIGION. This debate isn't for you, please move on.

I'd like to know the opinions and thoughts of others on Islam in the Western World. Specifically, do you think Islam will be 'Westernised', 'watered down', made to be benign (as has happened with Christianity in the West) sufficiently enough to minimise the adverse effects of living in a predominantly or significantly Islamic population to the point where peaceful coexistence is possible? Adverse effects being for example: capital punishments, implementation of 'holy laws', frequent terror attacks, the implementation of sharia law etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISLAM MEANING THE TEACHINGS OF ISLAM, THE RELIGION OF ISLAM, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ISLAM. NOT meaning individual Islamic religionists; NOT meaning EVERY Muslim; NOT meaning every. individual. single. aspect. of Islam. A much needed throat clearing, apparently. If you want to assume I'm an ignoramus pushing blind hatred for Islam and Muslims, if you want to be offended by all means do so, it takes a lot to hurt my feelings. Although I'd point out that I'm anti-religion, anti-Islam, NOT anti-religionist.

Then again a lot of the evil and destruction arising from Islam needn't be misinterpreted. It's teachings plainly promotes ideologies specialising in those feats.

It wasn't a personalised insult, but yes I was attacking your idea, with a lack of sensitivity, perhaps. But my position remains unchanged. Exactly what I meant when I said you should be more scientific in future, drop this theory of yours. You're on a fool's errand. You're attempting to create new definitions, which are unnecessary, confusing; science already has definitions for the things to which you refer. Why would we go to the effort of learning YOUR definitions, when you refuse to make use of the existing, accepted, universal definitions of the English language? It's madness. The terms you should be making use of here are 'environmentally sustainable', 'mutualism', 'destructive' and other scientific/biological definitions. Yet instead you insist on stubbornly redefining things and applying them universally incorrectly, on your mission to somehow attack all of religion.

Let's stop you there. "Good" and "bad" are ultimately meaningless in the universe, other than to the human mind. They're subjective notions brought about by what makes us feel good and what makes us feel bad. That's it. Now if any religion claims to have a monopoly on what's 'good', as opposed to it being innate to the majority of human beings, we can laugh it off. Because we know it's not remotely true. But for you to devise this crackpot theory, is pointless, meaningless, false and counter-productive to your claimed goal. You're taking the definition of good away from religion and giving it to a new form of stupid superstition. I suggest you rethink your strategy completely and try being much more scientific in future.

So you're surrounded by brilliant weather and stunning girls.... jeez. Not bad at all.

I think you're over thinking it, looking for a missing link that perhaps doesn't exist. It's the same reason we like women, except with two women you add in sexual acts to the equation, which is more exciting. And how do you know the same isn't true with women for gay men? I find I liked the lesbian stuff much more when I was younger and first looking at porn. These days I prefer heterosexual stuff, find it more exciting; probably because it seems more relatable in a sense, now that I'm at the age where I'm seeing women, it's more realistic in a sense. I think age and mind-set may have something to do with it therefore. Not just from my experience but conferring with mates on the topic in the past.