Do you think the religion of Islam will ever be respected in a planet where the majority of people are non-Muslims?

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, koti said:

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?

I have, "cultures are everywhere some good some not so good".

Edited August 7, 2017 by dimreepr

[koti]

3 minutes ago, Manticore said:

So, you're saying that all Muslims are fanatics, and the 99+% that are not, are not true Muslims.

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

[koti]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I have, "cultures are everywhere some good some bad".

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

[dimreepr]

Just now, koti said:

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

In case I don't, please explain.

[JohnDoeLS]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Is that because of the religion, or because of the culture in which the religion resides?

I can't be sure, it's been around in my mind for a while. There is definitely a significant amount of violence and regressiveness in Islam's ideas that are being followed, one cannot deny that Islam is sexist, and it's been shown why people might think Christianity is more secular with the different direction the individual MCs takes in their stories, the Prophet approves of polygamy, child marriage, conquest and there is a significant amount of harsh punishment in the story that overshadows it's supposed good elements. It's also important to take note of the other ways humanity has tried to start violence but the tenants that are being followed in Islam right now are literally written in the Quran. 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, koti said:

I disagree with your line of argument. I have exactly the same amount of respect for President Trump and for Anders Breivik which is exactly zero...this piece of data does not tell you the whole picture of my opinion on both of these people now does it. 

 

But ofcourse that removing religion and substituting it with education is the solution. The Saudi royal family is a great example, most of them are really good, rational people, especially the younger generation which attended best US colleges.   

Most are rational and really good? Saudi is an absolute monarchy and human rights abuser. From their oppression of women to their indentured servitude style foriegn labor practices they are far from your description. Additionally your point about education is overstated as being educated in itself doesn't make one compassionate. Assad has a post graduate degree in Ophthalmology but is still a terrible person. 

 

 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, JohnDoeLS said:

 and it's been shown why people might think Christianity is more secular 

 

How is that even possible?

[JohnDoeLS]

Just now, dimreepr said:

How is that even possible?

Jesus Christ turns the other cheeks and dies for people's sins instead of resorting to violence. 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, JohnDoeLS said:

Jesus Christ turns the other cheeks and dies for people's sins instead of resorting to violence. 

You're missing the point, Good and 'not so good' can be found in ALL societies/cultures/religions at some point in the timeline; we all seem to accept this rule of thumb if the society/culture/religion is ours, otherwise fuck-em...

[JohnDoeLS]

Just now, dimreepr said:

You're missing the point, Good and 'not so good' can be found in ALL societies/cultures/religions at some point in the timeline; we all seem to accept this rule of thumb if the society/culture/religion is ours, otherwise fuck-em...

No. You are missing the point, I am telling you what these two did to gain respect in contrast with each other, one was clearly more peaceful than the other and hence why people see one better than the other. I know what moral relativism is but should you accept cannibalism? No one should automatically reject culture but no one should tolerate ones that are clearly regressive. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, JohnDoeLS said:

No. You are missing the point, I am telling you what these two did to gain respect in contrast with each other, one was clearly more peaceful than the other and hence why people see one better than the other. I know what moral relativism is but should you accept cannibalism? No one should automatically reject culture but no one should tolerate ones that are clearly regressive. 

No need to ask which side you're on...

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, JohnDoeLS said:

 No one should automatically reject culture but no one should tolerate ones that are clearly regressive. 

 

No one should shag sheep, but everyone should tolerate the sheep that like it.

[koti]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No one should shag sheep, but everyone should tolerate the sheep that like it.

Man, just say it out loud. Slowly. 

[JohnDoeLS]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No one should shag sheep, but everyone should tolerate the sheep that like it.

What you just said is fundamentally retarded. I hope you are kidding. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, koti said:

Man, just say it out loud. Slowly. 

You chased the rabbit, what did you expect?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, koti said:

Religious fundamentalism is an intrinsic part of Islam, these two cannot be separated.  

Rubbish.  

[koti]

34 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Most are rational and really good? Saudi is an absolute monarchy and human rights abuser. From their oppression of women to their indentured servitude style foriegn labor practices they are far from your description. Additionally your point about education is overstated as being educated in itself doesn't make one compassionate. Assad has a post graduate degree in Ophthalmology but is still a terrible person. 

 

 

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.

[JohnDoeLS]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No need to ask which side you're on...

I am on the side of rationality. I gave my view on why people might not respect Islam over other religions as the topic had asked and pointed out the regressive elements in the Quran and its main character, I also said I can't be sure because humanity has always found a way to start violence. 

Edited August 7, 2017 by JohnDoeLS

[swansont]

1 hour ago, koti said:

Well maybe because they are not sticking to the doctrines of Islam aka they are not "true" Muslims.

Didn't take long for the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to appear.

[swansont]

55 minutes ago, koti said:

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

I thought they were the same thing (according to you)

Quote

I'm going to keep on mentioning Saudi's as I have first hand insight on this...everything there revolves around religion, culture is 100% saturated and caused by religion.

 

[koti]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

I thought they were the same thing (according to you)

 

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? 
 

Edited August 7, 2017 by koti

[swansont]

1 minute ago, koti said:

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

Because that's what you implied? Your assertion was that the culture is solely due to religion. There is no differentiation between the two.  

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, koti said:

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

1

I imagine it's mostly because you're talking bollocks...

[koti]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Because that's what you implied? Your assertion was that the culture is solely due to religion. There is no differentiation between the two.  

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.

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I imagine it's mostly because you're talking bollocks...

Yeah well, I think you should train your inner peace more instead of shooting unjustified crap at me (and the poor sheep)

Edited August 7, 2017 by koti

[Ten oz]

51 minutes ago, JohnDoeLS said:

 No one should automatically reject culture but no one should tolerate ones that are clearly regressive. 

People have used the argument that one culture is lesser than another since the stone age to justify war or make demands on others. In hindsight history never views the culture claiming superiority well. Your position that we (Western World) should reject a culture as regressive historically has been viewed poorly time and time again. We can support peace and cooperation without demagoguing religion.