Again, to demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty, you ignore the many times I've stated that religion is one thing and humans are another. I understand that you are unable to distinguish between them, but that does not preclude their distinctive differences.

The fact that Islam demands humans be delusional liars and violent barbarians does not make them any more less a human, it merely means they've been indoctrinated and brainwashed.

I disagree that mocking the belief is separate from mocking the individual who believes. Hence this thread.

So, is the statement "Atheism causes delusional idiocy and dishonesty" addressing atheism only? And not the individuals who happen to be atheists?

No it is statement directed at the person who holds those views, just like you may say "Being American makes you a moron", You are not just saying that America is moronic but all those who inhabit it are moronic as well.

I'm not sure I care for your title though :cool:

Perhaps you could have addressed the issue in a less combative way?


There is also a fine line between criticism and mocking.

No it is statement directed at the person who holds those views, just like you may say "Being American makes you a moron", You are not just saying that America is moronic but all those who inhabit it are moronic as well.

I'm not sure I care for your title though :cool:

I'm just a violent, lying, delusional Islamofascist (or is it Islamist or Islamic fundamentalist?)

What do I know?:rolleyes:

Perhaps you could have addressed the issue in a less combative way?


There is also a fine line between criticism and mocking.

Uh, are you kidding ME?

Shich is right. If you just mock a characteristic of a belief and not directing the mockery towards anyone, then you are NOT mocking the person. Although you may be offending them.

Deciding that the right decision for yourself is to not believe in something is not the same as mocking that belief, let alone the believer. Nor is that anyone's business. Judging an atheist is no better than judging a believer.

Shich is right. If you just mock a characteristic of a belief and not directing the mockery towards anyone, then you are NOT mocking the person. Although you may be offending them.

Yes, if you were to say (blank) part iof atheism is idiotic(even here I would stress that the words you use to be critical also are determinative in the way the criticism is viewed), thats fine, but when you say atheism causes idiocy then you are just insulting anyone who is an atheist.

I'm just a violent, lying, delusional Islamofascist (or is it Islamist or Islamic fundamentalist?)

What do I know?:rolleyes:

Q made somewhat of an ignorant and immature statement there. Since he condemned and overgeneralized Islamic befiefs, it would be very offensive to any self-respecting person, Islamic or not. Don't feel bad, Q is just saying that because only the bad, fundamentalist side of islam is being expressed to him by Faux media. :D

Deciding that the right decision for yourself is to not believe in something is not the same as mocking that belief, let alone the believer. Nor is that anyone's business. Judging an atheist is no better than judging a believer.

Hmm so you think its appropriate to say:

The fact that Islam demands humans be delusional liars and violent barbarians...

Uh, are you kidding ME?

No, do you fail to see the distinction?

Yes, if you were to say (blank) part iof atheism is idiotic, thats fine, but when you say atheism causes idiocy then you are just insulting anyone who is an atheist.

When someone makes a childish choice to generalize in an arguement like that, don't even bother with him/her. When they feel the need to do that, they really have no idea what they are talking about. :cool:

When someone makes a childish choice to generalize in an arguement like that, don't even bother with him/her. When they feel the need to do that, they really have no idea what they are talking about. :cool:

True, if you have an argument against something at least take an intellectual approach to it. :D

Q made somewhat of an ignorant and immature statement there. Since he condemned and overgeneralized Islamic befiefs, it would be very offensive to any self-respecting person, Islamic or not. Don't feel bad, Q is just saying that because only the bad, fundamentalist side of islam is being expressed to him by Faux media.

So he's displaying delusional idiocy and/or dishonesty?

I'm right !!! :eek::eek::eek:

So he's displaying delusional idiocy and/or dishonesty?

I'm right !!! :eek::eek::eek:

Ahh but shouldn't you be taking the high road of attributing this "idiocy" to him and not to the atheist group as a whole?

When someone makes a childish choice to generalize in an arguement like that, don't even bother with him/her. When they feel the need to do that, they really have no idea what they are talking about. :cool:

True, if you have an argument against something at least take an intellectual approach to it. :D

I love you too. :D

So he's displaying delusional idiocy and/or dishonesty?

I'm right !!! :eek::eek::eek:

Just the individual, it does not have anything to do with his beliefs, just the person. So when you generalize, all you are doing is feeding the fire and not solving a thing.

Ahh but shouldn't you be taking the high road of attributing this "idiocy" to him and not to the atheist group as a whole?

If you read the OP, I said I disagree. :)

If you read the OP, I said I disagree. :)

Then couldn't you take anything anyone has done in that context and attribute it to whatever group they are a part of?

Is mocking the individual also mocking the belief then?

Hmm so you think its appropriate to say:

The fact that Islam demands humans be delusional liars and violent barbarians...

No I don't. But not all atheists are like that. Just as many people of various religions make derogatory comments to atheists and opposing religions. Grouping all Islamics is horrible, as is grouping all atheists and calling them idiotic and dishonest. Stereotypes are not okay against some groups but not others. What you said about atheism makes you just as bad as those who said that about Islam.

Pretty much what Exeter said.

No I don't. But not all atheists are like that. Just as many people of various religions make derogatory comments to atheists and opposing religions. Grouping all Islamics is horrible, as it grouping all atheists and calling them idiotic and dishonest. Stereotypes are not okay against some groups but not others. What you said about atheism makes you just as bad as those who said that about Islam.

Exactly!!

Then couldn't you take anything anyone has done in that context and attribute it to whatever group they are a part of?

Is mocking the individual also mocking the belief then?


Hmm good question. So if a person calls himself a Nazi, can you say he is identifying himself as a good person?

edit, I find it interesting that everyone seems to have missed the fact that I disagreed with the sentiment expressed in the title. :D

Hmm good question. So if a person calls himself a Nazi, can you say he is identifying himself as a good person?

edit, I find it interesting that everyone seems to have missed the fact that I disagreed with the sentiment expressed in the title. :D

Well If you call a person an idiot and that person is a Christian/Muslim /Atheist/democrat/republican, does that mean that you are calling any of those belief systems idiotic?




I disagree that mocking the belief is separate from mocking the individual who believes. Hence this thread.


I caught that you didn't agree with it:D

I just don't see how one would see an "attack" or argument against their beliefs is an insult to them.

Hmm good question. So if a person calls himself a Nazi, can you say he is identifying himself as a good person?


I would depend on the person that he is identifying himself to. For example, if he is identifying himself as a nazi to a skinhead, then to the skinhead, he would be a good person. However, if he said that to a holocaust survivor, then he would be identifying himself as a criminal.

Well If you call a person an idiot and that person is a Christian/Muslim /Atheist/democrat/republican, does that mean that you are calling any of those belief systems idiotic?



Hmm sort of like "are all atheists responsible for (Q)'s outlook"?

What do you think?:cool:

I would depend on the person that he is identifying himself to. For example, if he is identifying himself as a nazi to a skinhead, then to the skinhead, he would be a good person. However, if he said that to a holocaust survivor, then he would be identifying himself as a criminal.

Thats a very perceptive response.

So who decides what the group represents? :)

Hmm sort of like "are all atheists responsible for (Q)'s outlook"?

What do you think?:cool:

Of course not, just like Muslims as a whole are not responsible for a splinter faction of extremists. Just because a Muslim says "death to (blank)", does that mean you might as well have said it...NO of course not.

Idiocy transcends Race religion and gender. =p

I just don't see how one would see an "attack" or argument against their beliefs is an insult to them.

So you agree that atheism causes delusional idiocy and dishonesty and possible anti-social tendencies?

Thats a very perceptive response.

So who decides what the group represents? :)

The individual

Q made somewhat of an ignorant and immature statement there. Since he condemned and overgeneralized Islamic befiefs, it would be very offensive to any self-respecting person, Islamic or not. Don't feel bad, Q is just saying that because only the bad, fundamentalist side of islam is being expressed to him by Faux media. :D

Why would I feel bad? I haven't the faintest what you're on about? The statement you quoted was not mine. Is it the one quoted in the OP by Sam?

So you agree that atheism causes delusional idiocy and dishonesty and possible anti-social tendencies?

No, of course not. Some people may use their beliefs in athiesm as a foundation to project their own idiocy upon others, but thats not the fault of atheism as a whole now is it? ;)

Why would I feel bad? I haven't the faintest what you're on about? The statement you quoted was not mine. Is it the one quoted in the OP by Sam?

Read post #1 with your quote. That seemed pretty immature to me.

I disagree that mocking the belief is separate from mocking the individual who believes. Hence this thread.

So, is the statement "Atheism causes delusional idiocy and dishonesty" addressing atheism only? And not the individuals who happen to be atheists?

Mocking any concept, idea, notion, etc. is not the same as mocking a human being. They are two distinct actions. Humans tend to bind certain concepts, ideas, notions to their identity and / or pride and mocking / attacking those concepts, ideas, or notions results in anyone whose bound to them feeling mocked / attacked.

Generally speaking human-bound information when attacked requires the most energy to emotionally process and defend when that information isn't true.

Edit: I read the poll incorrectly. My response should have been "Yes".

I disagree that mocking the belief is separate from mocking the individual who believes.

You disagree... so what? Why do you disagree?

So, is the statement "Atheism causes delusional idiocy and dishonesty" addressing atheism only? And not the individuals who happen to be atheists?

A non-belief in one particular religious set of doctrines is something we all share, including you. In fact, you have only one single set of doctrines more than I that you do believe.

Your religion prohibits you from believing in any other religion, something to the effect of eternal fire and damnation if you do so. That makes you an atheist to all other religions except Islam.

So, how now, brown cow?

Mocking any concept, idea, notion, etc. is not the same as mocking a human being. They are two distinct actions. Humans tend to bind certain concepts, ideas, notions to their identity and / or pride and mocking / attacking those concepts, ideas, or notions results in anyone whose bound to them feeling mocked / attacked.

Generally speaking human-bound information when attacked requires the most energy to emotionally process and defend when that information isn't true.

Edit: I read the poll incorrectly. My response should have been "Yes".

Hmm so if GWB says atheists should not be considered patriots (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm)or citizens because its one country under God and polls show that Americans trust atheists least (http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/24/67686) of all, even less than (!)Muslims, immigrants and homosexuals(!), you don't care because they are not attacking you as an individual merely your belief.

Read post #1 with your quote. That seemed pretty immature to me.

Ok, explain.

Originally Posted by (Q)
Again, to demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty, you ignore the many times I've stated that religion is one thing and humans are another. I understand that you are unable to distinguish between them, but that does not preclude their distinctive differences.

The fact that Islam demands humans be delusional liars and violent barbarians does not make them any more less a human, it merely means they've been indoctrinated and brainwashed.

I see the immaturity here. You are generalizing 1.4 billion people as being delusional liars and violent barbarians. That's reaaaally intelectual. :rolleyes:

Most of my friends believe in God, but I make fun of religion all the time. I respect my friends as people living in a complex world that have made their own decisions about what to believe. It's not them that I object to but faith and irrational belief in general.

Most of my friends believe in God, but I make fun of religion all the time. I respect my friends as people living in a complex world that have made their own decisions about what to believe. It's not them that I object to but faith and irrational belief in general.

You really should move to a country thats not under God, since atheists are not, according to the President, citizens or patriots in such a country, as you have proven. :mad:

Did Bush actually say that?

I see the immaturity here. You are generalizing 1.4 billion people as being delusional liars and violent barbarians. That's reaaaally intelectual. :rolleyes:

I worded my response to suggest that it is Islam, the ideology, that makes the demands on humans to exhibit, condone and justify barbaric behavior, and to do so under the influence of indoctrination.

You really should move to a country thats not under God, since atheists are not, according to the President, citizens or patriots in such a country, as you have proven. :mad:

To the best of my knowledge the united states is a secular nation.:shrug:

Did Bush actually say that?

Did you miss it?

When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice-president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates, had the following exchange with then-Vice-President Bush.


Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

Of course, none of the atheists care, its only an attack on their belief.:D

Did you miss it?

Yeah, I did miss it. lol, "not citizens". Wow.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

Of course, none of the atheists care, its only an attack on their belief.:D

I do care :p It wasn't an attack on belief, it was an attack on the people of the belief. He didn't say atheism is a stupid belief, he said that atheist people are not patriots.

Yeah, I did miss it. lol, "not citizens". Wow.

I do care :p It wasn't an attack on belief, it was an attack on the people of the belief. He didn't say atheism is a stupid belief, he said that atheist people are not patriots.

In a nation under God, how can they be? Its against their belief!

An atheist is separate from an individual. Mocking the atheist part has nothing to do with the individual!

Like saying Islamic terrorist has nothing to do with individuals who follow Islam!

An atheist is separate from an individual. Mocking the atheist part has nothing to do with the individual!

Not when your specifically talking about the non-atheism parts of the individual, like Bush. When that is done it can't be said that only the atheist part is under criticism.

Not when your specifically talking about the non-atheism parts of the individual, like Bush. When that is done it can't be said that only the atheist part is under criticism.

All you have to do is stop being an atheist and you're clear. Its only the belief, see?:p

I worded my response to suggest that it is Islam, the ideology, that makes the demands on humans to exhibit, condone and justify barbaric behavior, and to do so under the influence of indoctrination.

I do not really see the logic in that...

All you have to do is stop being an atheist and you're clear. Its only the belief, see?:p

Grrr... Stop spreading the pain. ;)

All you have to do is stop being an atheist and you're clear. Its only the belief, see?:p

Sigh..I can see this isn't so much a discussion as it is a cry for attention:rolleyes:

Sigh..I can see this isn't so much a discussion as it is a cry for attention:rolleyes:

I'm repeating the stupid arguments I receive. Apparently, the stupidity is less obvious going in the other direction :rolleyes:

Bush is wrong on this, like so many other things.

I'm repeating the stupid arguments I receive. Apparently, the stupidity is less obvious going in the other direction :rolleyes:

No, its just as obvious, I just thought that you would be above this kind of silly game. ;)

No, its just as obvious, I just thought that you would be above this kind of silly game. ;)

I tried everything else.:shrug:

I agree with Q on this one

I don't think the title of this thread is all that mocking. It's a statement that should be supported with some kind of argument. I don't take it that SAM is trying to insult me personally.

I agree with Q on this one

On this part?
I worded my response to suggest that it is Islam, the ideology, that makes the demands on humans to exhibit, condone and justify barbaric behavior, and to do so under the influence of indoctrination.

That *can* be true. Do you agree with him that it applies to the entire group (or most of it)?

I don't think the title of this thread is all that mocking. It's a statement that should be supported with some kind of argument. I don't take it that SAM is trying to insult me personally.

Of course you don't. Because its not an opinion that profiles you based on your belief or requires you to be treated differently. If you were living in <place where being an athiest makes you a target> that would be a different matter.

Thank God I'm not living in a theocracy.

Thank God I'm not living in a theocracy.

Only in a country where atheists are less trusted than Muslims, immigrants and homosexuals.:rolleyes:



Atheists are America's least trusted group, according to a national survey conducted by University sociology researchers.

Based on a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households and in-depth interviews with more than 140 people, researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexuals and other groups as "sharing their vision of American society." Americans are also least willing to let their children marry atheists.

On this part?


That *can* be true. Do you agree with him that it applies to the entire group (or most of it)?

i think that endoctrination exploits a very delicate part of the human nature, which is the fact that we are prone to believing

i don't think that people should be at blame for believing in something they were made believe since a very young age

indoctrination blinds judgement, and that goes for any situation, even indoctrinating someone to have no beliefs, i must say

everyone should be allowed the right to reach their own conclusions, so THEN we can make fun of them

Only in a country where atheists are less trusted than Muslims, immigrants and homosexuals.:rolleyes:

so is he a target or is he not

should he be offended or not?


make up your mind, sam

Only in a country where atheists are less trusted than Muslims, immigrants and homosexuals.:rolleyes:

haha, that is kind of surprising and not surprising.

But it isn't worrying "Because its not an opinion that profiles [us] based on [our] belief or requires [us] to be treated differently."

At least not yet, in any noticeable way.

so is he a target or is he not

should he be offended or not?


make up your mind, sam

I think he is. I think 50% of the people thinking atheists are not a part of society should definitely be considered as discriminatory towards atheists.

I think the President of the country saying atheists are not citizens or patriots is definitely insulting to atheists.

So, is the statement "Atheism causes delusional idiocy and dishonesty" addressing atheism only? Yes, in a reasonable context. What follows should be some kind of evidence and argument (such as high suicide rates not otherwise to be expected, accompanied by delusions and idiocies and lies, apparently caused by the absence of a belief in a deity) .

Good luck with that, btw. But it's a statement about atheism, not atheists.
"Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God".
- - -

Of course, none of the atheists care, its only an attack on their belief. No.That's an attack on atheists, not their beliefs.

Why does theistic belief so often correlate with that confusion ?

I think he is. I think 50% of the people thinking atheists are not a part of society should definitely be considered as discriminatory towards atheists.

I think the President of the country saying atheists are not citizens or patriots is definitely insulting to atheists.


this perpective can only be taken from ignorance

everyone else is trying to make it personal

atheists are not impressed

:cool:

i think that endoctrination exploits a very delicate part of the human nature, which is the fact that we are prone to believing

i don't think that people should be at blame for believing in something they were made believe since a very young age

indoctrination blinds judgement, and that goes for any situation, even indoctrinating someone to have no beliefs, i must say

everyone should be allowed the right to reach their own conclusions, so THEN we can make fun of them

I agree with that, but not with (Q)'s ideas that more or less all Muslims are brainwashed towards being barbarians. Some fundamentalists appear to be, but I think it is more because of the chaos in many of the areas where that happens. I can't find any fundamentalist Muslims around where I live in America, but in areas under constant destabilization, war, poor living conditions, etc., fundamentalists are around.

Yes, in a reasonable context. What follows should be some kind of evidence and argument (such as high suicide rates not otherwise to be expected, accompanied by delusions and idiocies and lies, apparently caused by the absence of a belief in a deity) .

Good luck with that, btw. But it's a statement about atheism, not atheists.
No.That's an attack on atheists, not their beliefs.

Why does theistic belief so often correlate with that confusion ?

Must be the fact that theism demands lying and violence as part of the parcel maybe?:rolleyes:

I can't legislate trust.

I can't legislate trust.

Thats okay, Muslims can't legislate against religious discrimination garbed as free speech and profiling either.

I agree with that, but not with (Q)'s ideas that more or less all Muslims are brainwashed towards being barbarians. Some fundamentalists appear to be, but I think it is more because of the chaos in many of the areas where that happens. I can't find any fundamentalist Muslims around where I live in America, but in areas under constant destabilization, war, poor living conditions, etc., fundamentalists are around.

i think that the problem with any religion is that considering they are always absolute (one is right and every other one is wrong), parents are always held responsable for teaching them to their chindren from a very young age, when he children just take anything the parents say as true, and aren't capable of judging by themselves

if that's not brainwashing, I don't know what is

rather the brainwashing is towards turning children into murderers or not, is a secondary subject, which is more related to specific islamic doctrines than the subject of brainwashing itself

in other words, they are being brainwashed and that is a fact, the refined detail is in what they are being brainwashed for

To qualify as discrimination, you would have to identify some kind of loss to you. If the loss is simply that your religion doesn't allow you to say that, it would be difficult to construct some kind of legal argument.

A profile is more than one quality, not just "Muslim". Such a profile would not be useful.

try stop blowing shit up, amirite?

To qualify as discrimination, you would have to identify some kind of loss to you. If the loss is simply that your religion doesn't allow you to say that, it would be difficult to construct some kind of legal argument.

A profile is more than one quality, not just "Muslim". Such a profile would not be useful.

I'd say its very quantifiable.

e.g. If Obama was a Muslim, would he be a Presidential candidate?

And thats just one among others

The key message of the report is that "in the aftermath of 9/11, the social climate facing Muslims has deteriorated in the countries covered by this report […] pre-exiting prejudice and discriminations against Muslims have been reinforced. The xenophobic prejudice against Muslims has resulted in attacks on Muslims in the streets and other public spaces.

Although the attacks have involved mainly verbal abuse, cases of physical violence and vandalism have been registered as well. Many attacks have never been reported to the police because victims lacked confidence that police would deal with their cases.

The report states that in some countries, it has become more "legitimate" to openly express hostility and to use intolerant language against Muslims. Nevertheless, it must be stated that the courts have acted, in general, as a positive example in protecting the rights of the Muslims against discrimination.


The rise of the xenophobic far-right and the neo-fascist parties in Europe in the post 11/9 period presents one of the biggest challenges, not only for ethnic and religious communities, but rather for the democratic political systems themselves in the EU in general.

Yet the Muslim communities face a special challenge due to the anti-Muslim rhetoric of these parties. Riding the wave of the "war against terrorism", the ultra-right parties try to implement a xenophobic and chauvinistic agenda by (mis)using anti-Muslim and anti-migration rhetoric.

The French far-right Front National Party argues that the ethics of Islam are not compatible with values of French civilisation. (Party's leader earned a conviction in April 2004 for inciting racial hatred in a newspaper article.)

The far-right Danish People's Party is accusing Muslims of undermining democratic values and promoting violence. The murdered populist Pim Fortuyn of the Netherlands used to talk about the new Cold War against Muslims.

Unfortunately, some representatives of democratic parties and even acting governments occasionally repeated the far-right rhetoric of the Italian Liga Nord, the German Republikaner and NPD, the Belgian Vlaams Blok, the Austrian FPÖ etc. The report recalls anti-Muslim statements by leading democratic politicians: for example, the statement made by the Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi "Western civilisation is superior to Islamic civilisation" and the suggested concept of "leading culture/Leitkultur" by the German CDU.

The integration minister of the Belgian Flemish region indicated in January 2005 that mosques have to use the Dutch language, show tolerance for women and homosexuals and proscribe the preaching of extremist ideas. These conditions do not apply to other religious communities.

try stop blowing shit up, amirite?

Me? (http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm)

yea you sam, you tearist you

So, your argument is that if we didn't allow any criticism of any group of people, they would be liked and trusted? Who would you be complaining against here? All the American people? You don't know how they arrived at their opinions. If freedom means anything, it's the freedom to have an opinion.

So, your argument is that if we didn't allow any criticism of any group of people, they would be liked and trusted? Who would you be complaining against here? All the American people? You don't know how they arrived at their opinions. If freedom means anything, it's the freedom to have an opinion.

Intolerance is not criticism. Discrimination is not criticism. Profiling is not criticism.

So, your argument is that if we didn't allow any criticism of any group of people, they would be liked and trusted? Who would you be complaining against here? All the American people? You don't know how they arrived at their opinions. If freedom means anything, it's the freedom to have an opinion.

actually, she really has no argument here and is just throwing some anti-american bullshit around to tr to make the thread worthwile

you know, sam...

Intolerance is not criticism. Discrimination is not criticism. Profiling is not criticism.

what are you criticizing here? america, ocidental thinking... mankind?

rather the brainwashing is towards turning children into murderers or not, is a secondary subject, which is more related to specific islamic doctrines than the subject of brainwashing itself

in other words, they are being brainwashed and that is a fact, the refined detail is in what they are being brainwashed for

In the cases of fundamentalists, that can be true. I've known plenty of Muslims and none that that is true of.

Intolerance is not criticism. Discrimination is not criticism. Profiling is not criticism.

I agree that discrimination is not merely criticism, it needs to go beyond that. However, criticism could be interpreted as intolerance. Profiling is a difference matter entirely, and I suggest that affiliation with a religion does not, and never has constituted a profile.

For instance, if I suggest that Islam has influenced it's believers to suicide bomb, I would say that's criticism, you might say it's discrimination.

Intolerance is not criticism. Discrimination is not criticism. Profiling is not criticism.

Well said. You should write speeches for Obama. ;)

In the cases of fundamentalists, that can be true. I've known plenty of Muslims and none that that is true of.

it doesn't matter

although imo, they should try to fix their own fucking business before they can start lecturing anyone on intolerance, discrimination and profiling

but that's just my opinion

what are you criticizing here? america, ocidental thinking... mankind?

Depends on the forum. :p

Right now, I'm criticising the view that one can say Islam demands Muslims to be delusional liars and violent barbarians and then turn around and say this is a criticism of the religion, not the individual.

Why? The individual can ignore these demands. People are very individual about how they practice their religion.

Why? The individual can ignore these demands. People are very individual about how they practice their religion.

Uh so its your claim that Islam demands Muslims to be delusional liars and violent barbarians?

Depends on the forum. :p

Right now, I'm criticising the view that one can say Islam demands Muslims to be delusional liars and violent barbarians and then turn around and say this is a criticism of the religion, not the individual.

pardon me if I missed it, but I haven't seen you offer any substancial argument defending the oposite view

pardon me if I missed it, but I haven't seen you offer any substancial argument defending the oposite view

I see no support for that view either.

Uh so its your claim that Islam demands Muslims to be delusional liars and violent barbarians?

wasn't aimed at me, but yeah

at least the delusional liar part

but don't be offended personaly please

i'd reply positive to that question regarding any religion
religions spill blood everywhere they go

Uh so its your claim that Islam demands Muslims to be delusional liars and violent barbarians?

That would not be my precise criticism of Islam. My complaints are more with faith in general.

it doesn't matter

I think it shows that being raised a Muslim does not necessarily brainwash them into being violent, except in a very small minority of situations where there are other factors which are more responsible.

although imo, they should try to fix their own fucking business before they can start lecturing anyone on intolerance, discrimination and profiling

but that's just my opinion

How about both :O Every group has it's problems anyway, if we used that logic no one would be able to criticize anyone. Fixing their own business is pretty difficult... does S.A.M. need to bring peace to the Middle-East before criticizing atheists? :p

wasn't aimed at me, but yeah

at least the delusional liar part

but don't be offended personaly please

i'd reply positive to that question regarding any religion
religions spill blood everywhere they go

You just called me a delusional liar and you expect me not to be offended?:confused:

I see no support for that view either.

isn't it sufficient to have the word of the person who criticized, that the criticism was directed at the ideology and not the follower?

like when I say to you, you're a prett bright gal, but your beliefs are retarded

i'd reply positive to that question regarding any religion
religions spill blood everywhere they go

Now S.A.M. will probably bring up communism as an example of atheism killers for the 100000th time. T_T

I suspect it is true though. I think religion can be a outlet for human stupidity, but without religion there would be no problem finding another outlet.

E.g., take the stupid people who compromise American evangelicals. The people who like to deny evolution, stop scientific research, support wars in the Middle-East, and want to bring about the apocalypse so they can be "raptured" to heaven and look down from the clouds and enjoy watching the rest of us burning below... :p

Imagine if they weren't religious. Don't you think they'd be doing some other stupid and harmful thing? :p

isn't it sufficient to have the word of the person who criticized, that the criticism was directed at the ideology and not the follower?

like when I say to you, you're a prett bright gal, but your beliefs are retarded

And I would say, what do you even know about my beliefs?

If you think my beliefs are retarded, why are we even having this conversation?

Clearly as a delusional liar with retarded beliefs, I have nothing to offer you.

You just called me a delusional liar and you expect me not to be offended?:confused:

i just called you gullible


you might remember that in a few posts back I said that people who believe in something shouldn't be accountable for their deeds, since they were submitted to brainwashing when they were vulnerable

so you're a delusional liar but it's not your fault
pat pat pat

i just called you gullible


you might remember that in a few posts back I said that people who believe in something shouldn't be accountable for their deeds, since they were submitted to brainwashing when they were vulnerable

so you're a delusional liar but it's not your fault
pat pat pat

And I will be the first person to say that I am entirely responsible for anything and everything I believe in. I take full and complete responsibility for all my beliefs.

And right now, I believe I am disappointed in you and in athiests who think like you.

I think it shows that being raised a Muslim does not necessarily brainwash them into being violent, except in a very small minority of situations where there are other factors which are more responsible.



How about both :O Every group has it's problems anyway, if we used that logic no one would be able to criticize anyone. Fixing their own business is pretty difficult... does S.A.M. need to bring peace to the Middle-East before criticizing atheists? :p

i think that whoever is criticizing should have the moral higher ground... don't laugh at my dirty hands when you're shoulders deep in shit style

that's not islam's case

Now S.A.M. will probably bring up communism as an example of atheism killers for the 100000th time. T_T

I suspect it is true though. I think religion can be a outlet for human stupidity, but without religion there would be no problem finding another outlet.

E.g., take the stupid people who compromise American evangelicals. The people who like to deny evolution, stop scientific research, support wars in the Middle-East, and want to bring about the apocalypse so they can be "raptured" to heaven and look down from the clouds and enjoy watching the rest of us burning below... :p

Imagine if they weren't religious. Don't you think they'd be doing some other stupid and harmful thing? :p

replace "religion" for "indoctrination" and we're set

If being Muslim means that you accept without question that the creator of everything dictated a book to Mohammed, then is our description of that as delusional unwarranted?

i think that whoever is criticizing should have the moral higher ground... don't laugh at my dirty hands when you're shoulders deep in shit style

that's not islam's case

So much for the power of rational thinking. :rolleyes:

So much for the power of rational thinking. :rolleyes:

Yes, because its being displayed all over this thread. :rolleyes:

And I would say, what do you even know about my beliefs?

If you think my beliefs are retarded, why are we even having this conversation?

Clearly as a delusional liar with retarded beliefs, I have nothing to offer you.

you mean why are we having this extremely uplifting conversation on a discussion board on the interweb?!


i've been doing this for 10 years and I still have no fucking clue

i think that whoever is criticizing should have the moral higher ground... don't laugh at my dirty hands when you're shoulders deep in shit style

that's not islam's case

Nice analogy ;) but I think their case is pretty average. Better than mine as an American. But I don't feel that I am primarily responsible for what my country is done and is doing, so I don't think that I should be excluded from criticizing Muslim fundamentalists any more than Muslims should be excluded from criticizing my country. As long as I am not just being biased and not criticizing my own country as well.

It doesn't mean I think you are delusional about everything.

replace "religion" for "indoctrination" and we're set

I will, that's even better :O

And I will be the first person to say that I am entirely responsible for anything and everything I believe in. I take full and complete responsibility for all my beliefs.

And right now, I believe I am disappointed in you and in athiests who think like you.

so tell me, if you ever have children, will you teach them islam, or will you offer them a secular upbringing which will allow them to decide?

which upbringing will make your parents proud?

If being Muslim means that you accept without question that the creator of everything dictated a book to Mohammed, then is our description of that as delusional unwarranted?

Like I said, you don't even know what I believe but you've made up your mind based on your own ill informed opinion anyway.

And its a laugh, coming from an atheist who supports a genocidal state based on a 2000 year old religious legacy.

Talk about delusional idiocy and dishonesty.

So much for the power of rational thinking. :rolleyes:

rational thinking is exactly what can enable to get your fucking game together before saying anything about anyone else

rational thinking is exactly what can enable to get your fucking game together before saying anything about anyone else

What would qualify as getting it together? Sounds like a lot of work.

Notice the "if" part. That means I have not made up my mind about what you believe. Lets use your example, and please remember, this is only an intellectual exercise, not to be taken personally. What if I, as a Jew, believed that all Jews have a God given right to the land of Israel (assuming a wide interpretation about what that means). Would you be within your rights to call this belief delusional? I think so. Yet, you seem to want an exception for Muslim beliefs, which could be equally strange.

If I made a movie that said that Jews tend to believe in Zionism, would that be discrimination? Statistically, this is true.

so tell me, if you ever have children, will you teach them islam, or will you offer them a secular upbringing which will allow them to decide?

which upbringing will make your parents proud?

Indoctrinate them in my own delusional beliefs of course. I'm guessing you'll be teaching your children all the benefits of a religious upbringing. :rolleyes:

Like I said, you don't even know what I believe but you've made up your mind based on your own ill informed opinion anyway.

And its a laugh, coming from an atheist who supports a genocidal state based on a 2000 year old religious legacy.

Talk about delusional idiocy and dishonesty.

we can play "who's worse" game all night, that'd be so much fun

we can play "who's worse" game all night, that'd be so much fun
Why not? After all, we define rational thinking based on lack of knowledge and complete bias.

Indoctrinate them in my own delusional beliefs of course. I'm guessing you'll be teaching your children all the benefits of a religious upbringing. :rolleyes:

of course I will... I'll read all sorts of "bibles" to my children, they're full of pretty good morals and stuff

Like I said, you don't even know what I believe but you've made up your mind based on your own ill informed opinion anyway.

And its a laugh, coming from an atheist who supports a genocidal state based on a 2000 year old religious legacy.

Talk about delusional idiocy and dishonesty.

You seem to enjoy your freedom to criticise my views on Israel. I don't take it personally. Do you want that same freedom? ...Or is religion off limits?

What would qualify as getting it together? Sounds like a lot of work.

never gonna happen :)

If I made a movie that said that Jews tend to believe in Zionism, would that be discrimination? Statistically, this is true.

Hm, is it true statistically?

Anyway, I think it kind of would be... I don't see why you would make that point, rather than more specific reasons. It is not just because they are Jewish that they are supporting Zionism, which is what such statements seem to imply.

Why not? After all, we define rational thinking based on lack of knowledge and complete bias.

dont get all upset now because I'm telling you stuff you dont want to hear

of course I will... I'll read all sorts of "bibles" to my children, they're full of pretty good morals and stuff

They are?!
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/badass3b.jpg ;)

Notice the "if" part. That means I have not made up my mind about what you believe. Lets use your example, and please remember, this is only an intellectual exercise, not to be taken personally. What if I, as a Jew, believed that all Jews have a God given right to the land of Israel (assuming a wide interpretation about what that means). Would you be within your rights to call this belief delusional? I think so. Yet, you seem to want an exception for Muslim beliefs, which could be equally strange.



I don't. I think Jews have a right to believe that God gave them Israel if they want to. Does that give them the right to move en masse from Europe and kill the people who live there for that land?

Thats not a belief, is it?


If I made a movie that said that Jews tend to believe in Zionism, would that be discrimination? Statistically, this is true.

The equivalent of a Fitna would not be that. It would be something like "The Evil Jew" Is that discrimination or free speech? They even have verses from the Torah.

But for the sake of argument, what if that was the point of my movie, and I had supporting evidence? Would S.A.M be unhypocritical and support the banning of such a movie because it constituted discrimination against a group of people, possibly leading to a reduction in the political power of Jews?

You seem to enjoy your freedom to criticise my views on Israel. I don't take it personally. Do you want that same freedom? ...Or is religion off limits?

Do you see the difference between me criticising your support, as an atheist of a state based on a 2000 religious legacy? And not the formation of the state per se, but its current practice of an ethno-religious majority based on discrimination against people by religion?

And you saying that my religion demands me to be a delusional liar and a violent barbarian?

Why does theistic belief so often correlate with that confusion ?
”
Must be the fact that theism demands lying and violence as part of the parcel maybe? ? Trolling.

The confusion is in fact common, not only with you but with most of the hardcore defenders of various theisms. An attack on a belief is a personal attack on any particular believer, in the view of (what seems like disproportionately) many theists - to the point that when attacking beliefs themselves, they attack believers automatically and without distinction; to the point that those whom they wish to attack are often fitted out with "belief systems" to provide a handhold.

Intuitively, it seems to be related to the general anti-intellectual reflex of taking all argument as primarily status competition in the first place.

dont get all upset now because I'm telling you stuff you dont want to hear

Nothing new. I've been hearing this since 9/11. Not before that, strange as it may seem.

They are?!
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/badass3b.jpg ;)

hell yes, stuff like:

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

"Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?

37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

? Trolling.

The confusion is in fact common, not only with you but with most of the hardcore defenders of various theisms. An attack on a belief is a personal attack on any particular believer, in the view of (what seems like disproportionately) many theists - to the point that when attacking beliefs themselves, they attack believers automatically and without distinction; to the point that those whom they wish to attack are often fitted out with "belief systems" to provide a handhold.

Intuitively, it seems to be related to the general anti-intellectual reflex of taking all argument as primarily status competition in the first place.

Uh thats the argument used by the athiests who appear to think that atheism accords them some de facto rational superiority.

Do you see the difference between me criticising your support, as an atheist of a state based on a 2000 religious legacy? And not the formation of the state per se, but its current practice of an ethno-religious majority based on discrimination against people by religion?

And you saying that my religion demands me to be a delusional liar and a violent barbarian?

No, I don't see the difference. If you said Jewish support of the current policies of Israel was due to religion, I think you could make a good case. If I said Islamic support of terrorist groups was due to religion, I think that could be an equally valid argument.

No, I don't see the difference. If you said Jewish support of the current policies of Israel was due to religion, I think you could make a good case. If I said Islamic support of terrorist groups was due to religion, I think that could be an equally valid argument.

Both of those are clearly not true.

But for the sake of argument, what if that was the point of my movie, and I had supporting evidence? Would S.A.M be unhypocritical and support the banning of such a movie because it constituted discrimination against a group of people, possibly leading to a reduction in the political power of Jews?

I don't see how saying Jews support Zionism counts as discrimination. Make it Jews support Zionism through genocide and ethnocide of Palestinians and yes, that would be discrimination, especially if they cited stuff from the Torah to support it and sauid that action must be taken against Jews in their countries to prevent them from spreading their intolerant ideology and stopping all immigration of Jews or enforcing restrictions against the religious practices of Jews, since that would be indiscriminate targeting of all Jews.

Both of those are clearly not true.

Really how so?

No, I don't see the difference. If you said Jewish support of the current policies of Israel was due to religion, I think you could make a good case. If I said Islamic support of terrorist groups was due to religion, I think that could be an equally valid argument.

Both not true.

If you look at the history of Zionism, religious Jews strongly opposed it.

If you look at the research on current terrorism it is secular men with higher education who are most likely to be involved in it.

So both your arguments are dishonest

Really how so?

Because there are Jews who do not support Zionism.

Likewise, there are Muslims who are not terrorist.

If both Zionism and terrorism were due to respective religions, then all of them would be, without exception...

hell yes, stuff like:

The quotes are right, but I certainly don't think they apply to Muslims, only a small minority (which makes it pointless to distinguish them by Muslim rather than something more specific).

This thread is just plain crazy. Why, just today I consulted the Book of Sauces, chapter 3 (FSMNSV) and found that a nice dusting of basil and garlic can add zest to any life. This directly from the FSM Himself. So you see, rationality and honesty ar a hallmark of most atheists, especially those of us who believe fervently in the FSMs awesome teachings. Just try some angel hair pasta with a whitesauce and a bit of basil and garlic. Oh boy!

Hmm so if GWB says atheists should not be considered patriots (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm)or citizens because its one country under God and polls show that Americans trust atheists least (http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/24/67686) of all, even less than (!)Muslims, immigrants and homosexuals(!), you don't care because they are not attacking you as an individual merely your belief.

GWB is addressing people and not a belief in this example. It's the equivelant of saying that christians shouldn't be allowed in public school vs. prayer. On a personal note, I really don't care what GWB's opinion on atheists are. He's done such a craptacular job as president that he's lucky he hasn't been impeached and / or jailed. Barack is going to have his hands full wading through that mess.

As far as trusting atheists is concerned, again I could care less. We have government that protects the holders of beliefs and non-beliefs from each other.

Because there are Jews who do not support Zionism.

Likewise, there are Muslims who are not terrorist.

If both Zionism and terrorism were due to respective religions, then all of them would be, without exception...

Well then could you argue that religion has some influence in these actions? To say that it does not is just lying to yourself.

My walls are melting and my hair keeps trying to pull my ears off. fuck.

GWB is addressing people and not a belief in this example. It's the equivelant of saying that christians shouldn't be allowed in public school vs. prayer. On a personal note, I really don't care what GWB's opinion on atheists are. He's done such a craptacular job as president that he's lucky he hasn't been impeached and / or jailed. Barack is going to have his hands full wading through that mess.

As far as trusting atheists is concerned, again I could care less. We have government that protects the holders of beliefs and non-beliefs from each other.

Plagiarist... ;)

My walls are melting and my hair keeps trying to pull my ears off. fuck.

LSD? :D

Well then could you argue that religion has some influence in these actions? To say that it does not is just lying to yourself.

On what basis? If it were religion, why would the most religious be opposed?

Well then could you argue that religion has some influence in these actions? To say that it does not is just lying to yourself.

Influence? Sure... but not the most important influence.

On what basis?

A secondary basis at best, fundamentalist minorities aside (and in that case it is incorrect to attribute it to the religion).

On what basis? If it were religion, why would the most religious be opposed?

Because one persons belief is not an accurate representation of another's, if it were then you could categorize a group as a whole as stupid/dillusional or whatever.

Why do these boxelder bugs keep changin colors?

Why do these boxelder bugs keep changin colors?

Because they they are trying to divulge yo you a deeper meaning that you must come to realize before this moment escapes you and you are left outside the realm of infinity once more.

Because one persons belief is not an accurate representation of another's, if it were then you could categorize a group as a whole as stupid/dillusional or whatever.

Again, if it were religion, why would the MOST religious be opposed.

That tells me that it is people who are reinventing religion or rebelling against tradition who want to bring about change. In other words, its the ones who do not want to follow the traditional conservatives.

Both not true.

If you look at the history of Zionism, religious Jews strongly opposed it.

If you look at the research on current terrorism it is secular men with higher education who are most likely to be involved in it.

So both your arguments are dishonest

That's an interesting point you make, if it is true . There is a negative correlation between higher education and belief in Allah.

GWB is addressing people and not a belief in this example. It's the equivelant of saying that christians shouldn't be allowed in public school vs. prayer. On a personal note, I really don't care what GWB's opinion on atheists are. He's done such a craptacular job as president that he's lucky he hasn't been impeached and / or jailed. Barack is going to have his hands full wading through that mess.

As far as trusting atheists is concerned, again I could care less. We have government that protects the holders of beliefs and non-beliefs from each other.

That quote is GWB father's

A secondary basis at best, fundamentalist minorities aside (and in that case it is incorrect to attribute it to the religion).

Its not fundamentalist minorities per se. Osama for example, is a breakaway from the traditional Islamic teachings of letting the scholars decide what is best. He has taken an individualistic and rebellious anti-establishment stand (hence against the US AND the house of Saud simulatneously) and can be considered a rebel or a reformer (in a negative way).

My walls are melting and my hair keeps trying to pull my ears off. fuck.

get of the internet! go stare at some lights/listen to music
get the best off it

That quote is GWB father's
You are correct.

Plagiarist... ;)

Heh, who did I plagiarize? Whomever it was, that is one smart cookie!

get of the internet! go stare at some lights/listen to music
get the best off it

You are correct.

That quote is GWB father's

Ahhh, well at least the title of worst president in US history was given to his son... something to be proud of.

That's an interesting point you make, if it is true . There is a negative correlation between higher education and belief in Allah.

Most terrorists are home grown in the West and are better educated than their contemporaries. Many of them have lived as immigrants in a society in which they feel increasingly isolated or disconnected. Many have been chemists, engineers, doctors, architects. Most are brought up in not religious families and become terrorists because of friends and relatives rather than ideology.

There is so much stuff out there. Read anything on al Qaeda, Palestinians, LTTE. Its not restricted to Muslims.

You are correct.

do you see a pattern forming?

Most terrorists are home grown in the West...
You mean like cowboys? Cool...

do you see a pattern forming?

Yes. You are correct

i like what you're doing with this thread
I give it 100% support

Yes. You are correct

No you are correct!

i like what you're doing with this thread
I give it 100% support

You are correct!

Its not fundamentalist minorities per se. Osama for example, is a breakaway from the traditional Islamic teachings of letting the scholars decide what is best. He has taken an individualistic and rebellious anti-establishment stand (hence against the US AND the house of Saud simulatneously) and can be considered a rebel or a reformer (in a negative way).

Ah, that is new to me. Very interesting, along with your other info about how many terrorists are western born, more educated, etc. I've been completely misunderstanding.

Heh, who did I plagiarize? Whomever it was, that is one smart cookie!

He was! It was me (or Iceaura, who also plagiarized me!!)

JK of course, I do that often myself.

i like what you're doing with this thread
I give it 100% support

I'm mnot \\\ sure what yor talking about but YOU ARE CORRECT!

The boxeldr bugs are now camping on my shoulders and giving me orders. What should I do?

He was! It was me (or Iceaura, who also plagiarized me).

JK of course, I do that often myself.

I get the feeling atheists plagairize each other quite often. Yay for consistency!

last time i did shrooms i keep seing people having sex
ALL OVER THE WALLS

tell the bugs you're shooting a porno

I'm mnot \\\ sure what yor talking about but YOU ARE CORRECT!

The boxeldr bugs are now camping on my shoulders and giving me orders. What should I do?

I do not support what you're doing.

A heated argument was all that was distracting me from 10 remaining pages of Organic Chemistry. Now I may just have to go do them :(

I get the feeling atheists plagairize each other quite often. Yay for consistency!

Yep :p

Intuitively, it seems to be related to the general anti-intellectual reflex of taking all argument as primarily status competition in the first place.
”
Uh thats the argument used by the athiests who appear to think that atheism accords them some de facto rational superiority. Hence my intuition.

The confusion of attacks on beliefs with attacks on believers - one symptom of which is generalizing attacks on a belief to attacks on the whole person of the believer, and vice versa - is so common among the strongly theistic around here as to almost characterize theism itself.

Since various forms and expressions of it conflict, at least some theistic belief must be delusion; and the arguments, for it at least, intellectually dishonest. To take that as claiming that theists are all delusional liars, and argue against it on that basis, is to beg most serious questions involved.

He was! It was me (or Iceaura, who also plagiarized me!!) But I typed more words and longer sentences - doesn't that count as contribution ?

last time i did shrooms i keep seing people having sex
ALL OVER THE WALLS

tell the bugs you're shooting a porno

I did shrooms for the first time last year. There were peanut butter trees singing to me. That was just too damn cool.

last time i did shrooms i keep seing people having sex
ALL OVER THE WALLS

tell the bugs you're shooting a porno
Ok. Idid. now theyre having sex on my shoulders. Its very annoying. and theyre purpel too.

some just fell to their deaths. they fucked themselves to death. HA! little bastards.

shrooms? Im high on ayheism man...

Ah, that is new to me. Very interesting, along with your other info about how many terrorists are western born, more educated, etc. I've been completely misunderstanding.

Here are some references:

All it Takes to Make a Suicide Attacker. New Scientist 182:3 May 15, 2004.

Bennett, James. Gingerly, Arabs Question Suicide Bombings. New York Times, p.A1, Op, July 3, 2002.

Bennett, James. HAMAS Urges Iraqis to Make Suicide Attacks on the Invaders. New York Times, p.B13, Op, March 22, 2003.

Bennett, James. Rash of New Suicide Bombers Exhibit No Patterns or Ties. New York Times, p.A1, Op, June 21, 2002.

Bond, Michael. The Making of a Suicide Bomber. New Scientist 182:34-37 May 15, 2004.

Dying to Kill Us. New York Times, p.A17, Op, September 22, 2003.

Eshel, David. Israel Reviews Profile of Suicide Bombers. Jane's Intelligence Review 13:20-21 November 2001.

Gunaratna, Rohan. Suicide Terrorism: A Global Threat. Jane's Intelligence Review 12:52-55 April 2000.

Gunaratna, Rohan. Terror From the Sky. Jane's Intelligence Review 13:6-9 October 2001.

Hecht, Richard D. Deadly History, Deadly Actions, and Deadly Bodies: A Response to Ivan Strenski's 'Sacrifice, Gift and the Social Logic of Muslim "Human Bombers."' Terrorism and Political Violence 15:35-47 Autumn 2003.

Hoffman, Bruce and McCormick, Gordon H. Terrorism, Signaling, and Suicide Attack. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 27:243-281 July-August 2004.

Israeli, Raphael. A Manual of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence 14:23-40 Winter 2002.

Kondaki, Christopher. Suicide Terrorism, an Age-Old Weapon, Adds Technology. Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy 29:8-9 2001.

Kushner, Harvey W. Suicide Bombers: Business as Usual. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 19:329-337 October-December 1996.

Luft, Gal. The Palestinian H-Bomb. Foreign Affairs 81:2-8 July-August 2002.
Article discusses the Palestinian's growing acceptance of suicide bombings as a legitimate tool of war.

Moghadam, Assaf. Palestinian Suicide Terrorism in the Second Intifada: Motivations and Organizational Aspects. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 26:65-92 March-April 2003.

Pape, Robert A. The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. American Political Science Review 97:343-362 August 2003.

Perina, Kaja. Suicide Terrorism: Seeking Motives Beyond Mental Illness. Psychology Today 35:15 September-October 2002.

Pope, Hugh. HAMAS Official Won't Rule out Suicide Bombings. Wall Street Journal, p.A10, Op, April 21, 2003.

Sprinzak, Ehud. Rational Fanatics Foreign Policy 120:66-73 September-October 2000.

Strenski, Ivan. Sacrifice, Gift and the Social Logic of Muslim "Human Bombers." Terrorism and Political Violence 15:1-34 Autumn 2003.

Telhami, Shibley. Why Suicide Terrorism Takes Root. New York Times, pA23, Op, April 4, 2002.

Waldman, Amy. Masters of Suicide Bombing: Tamil Guerrillas of Sri Lanka. New York Times, p.A1, Op, January 14, 2003.

Here are some references:

All it Takes to Make a Suicide Attacker. New Scientist 182:3 May 15, 2004.

Bennett, James. Gingerly, Arabs Question Suicide Bombings. New York Times, p.A1, Op, July 3, 2002.

Bennett, James. HAMAS Urges Iraqis to Make Suicide Attacks on the Invaders. New York Times, p.B13, Op, March 22, 2003.

Bennett, James. Rash of New Suicide Bombers Exhibit No Patterns or Ties. New York Times, p.A1, Op, June 21, 2002.

Bond, Michael. The Making of a Suicide Bomber. New Scientist 182:34-37 May 15, 2004.

Dying to Kill Us. New York Times, p.A17, Op, September 22, 2003.

Eshel, David. Israel Reviews Profile of Suicide Bombers. Jane's Intelligence Review 13:20-21 November 2001.

Gunaratna, Rohan. Suicide Terrorism: A Global Threat. Jane's Intelligence Review 12:52-55 April 2000.

Gunaratna, Rohan. Terror From the Sky. Jane's Intelligence Review 13:6-9 October 2001.

Hecht, Richard D. Deadly History, Deadly Actions, and Deadly Bodies: A Response to Ivan Strenski's 'Sacrifice, Gift and the Social Logic of Muslim "Human Bombers."' Terrorism and Political Violence 15:35-47 Autumn 2003.

Hoffman, Bruce and McCormick, Gordon H. Terrorism, Signaling, and Suicide Attack. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 27:243-281 July-August 2004.

Israeli, Raphael. A Manual of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence 14:23-40 Winter 2002.

Kondaki, Christopher. Suicide Terrorism, an Age-Old Weapon, Adds Technology. Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy 29:8-9 2001.

Kushner, Harvey W. Suicide Bombers: Business as Usual. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 19:329-337 October-December 1996.

Luft, Gal. The Palestinian H-Bomb. Foreign Affairs 81:2-8 July-August 2002.
Article discusses the Palestinian's growing acceptance of suicide bombings as a legitimate tool of war.

Moghadam, Assaf. Palestinian Suicide Terrorism in the Second Intifada: Motivations and Organizational Aspects. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 26:65-92 March-April 2003.

Pape, Robert A. The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. American Political Science Review 97:343-362 August 2003.

Perina, Kaja. Suicide Terrorism: Seeking Motives Beyond Mental Illness. Psychology Today 35:15 September-October 2002.

Pope, Hugh. HAMAS Official Won't Rule out Suicide Bombings. Wall Street Journal, p.A10, Op, April 21, 2003.

Sprinzak, Ehud. Rational Fanatics Foreign Policy 120:66-73 September-October 2000.

Strenski, Ivan. Sacrifice, Gift and the Social Logic of Muslim "Human Bombers." Terrorism and Political Violence 15:1-34 Autumn 2003.

Telhami, Shibley. Why Suicide Terrorism Takes Root. New York Times, pA23, Op, April 4, 2002.

Waldman, Amy. Masters of Suicide Bombing: Tamil Guerrillas of Sri Lanka. New York Times, p.A1, Op, January 14, 2003.

That's just fucking great. So with all this scholarly research, we can now stop making terrorists, right? RIGHT???

^Holy crap.

I wrote an article on it some time back :D

shrooms? Im high on ayheism man...

Whose your supplier?

Ok. Idid. now theyre having sex on my shoulders. Its very annoying. and theyre purpel too.

some just fell to their deaths. they fucked themselves to death. HA! little bastards.

no better way to die

no better way to die

Amen sista'!

I wrote an article on it some time back :D

Great. How many busloads of innocent kids did it save from assholes with deathvests? None? Fucking great.

That's just fucking great. So with all this scholarly research, we can now stop making terrorists, right? RIGHT???

I loled

Whose your supplier?
Have you ever eaten a boxelder bug? Yummy!

Exhumed:

Not to keep you from Organic Chemistry (10 pages!!!) But if you're interested in Osama and the new movements in Islam, here is a series that is very interesting.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ali_eteraz/2007/09/the_roots_of_islamic_reform.html

Have you ever eaten a boxelder bug? Yummy!

By the handful!

http://www.royalalbertamuseum.ca/natural/insects/bugsfaq/pics/boxelder.jpg

That's just fucking great. So with all this scholarly research, we can now stop making terrorists, right? RIGHT???

Great. How many busloads of innocent kids did it save from assholes with deathvests? None? Fucking great.

You're right, its pointless to study anything, much better to randomly assign blame and demonize people.

Exhumed:

Not to keep you from Organic Chemistry (10 pages!!!) But if you're interested in Osama and the new movements in Islam, here is a series that is very interesting.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ali_eteraz/2007/09/the_roots_of_islamic_reform.html

Thanks. It looks like a worthwhile read I'll bookmark it for after tho.

By the handful!

http://www.royalalbertamuseum.ca/natural/insects/bugsfaq/pics/boxelder.jpg
Yep. Thats them. Horny little turds.

Great. How many busloads of innocent kids did it save from assholes with deathvests? None? Fucking great.

Actually, maybe if some Americans read it some of them would better understand better the part of the world that they influence the bombing of.

You're right, its pointless to study anything, much better to randomly assign blame and demonize people.
Oh no! Its wonderful to study lots of things. Like physics where we actually use what we learn (you know - to make a-bombs and such). Your kind of study says "Yep. We figured it out. Yay for us! Let's go get a beer, because that's about all we can do with it. People are suicidal shits. Cheers."

Oh no! Its wonderful to study lots of things. Like physics where we actually use what we learn (you know - to make a-bombs and such). Your kind of study says "Yep. We figured it out. Yay for us! Let's go get a be, because that's about all we can do ewith it. People are suicidal shits. Cheers."

/implodes in a random country :splat:

Actually, maybe if some Americans read it some of them would better understand better the part of the world that they influence the bombing of.

I, an american citizen, influence people to attack cafe's and school busses with trinitrotoluene? Sorry, but that's fucking bullshit.

/implodes in a random country :splat:
Did it hurt much?

Actually, maybe if some Americans read it some of them would better understand better the part of the world that they influence the bombing of.

Turkish Muslims are in the process of reinterpreting the Quran so it can be modernized. They are kind of a beacon of the positive way to be a Muslim. They are the ones all of Islam should be supporting.

Turkish Muslims are in the process of reinterpreting the Quran so it can be modernized. They are kind of a beacon of the positive way to be a Muslim. They are the ones all of Islam should be supporting.

Not to split hairs, but they're actually revising the hadiths - not the Qur'an.

Not to split hairs, but they're actually revising the hadiths - not the Qur'an.

Thats not splitting a hair, thats an entire head of hair.:p

Who would have ever thought that the average westerner would be forced to learn (or at least have drilled into their heads) something that they never gave a fuck about (and rightly so)? I have enough trouble dealing with jehovas witnesses and other xian groups as it is, without having to deal with backward muslim belief systems piled on top of it.

Religion will be the death of us all. But I guess that's a good thing for all the theists since they'll all get to go to their respective heavens. At least until they start eyeing up each others heavenly territories and start shooting lightning bolts across the clouds at each other.

Both not true.

If you look at the history of Zionism, religious Jews strongly opposed it.

If you look at the research on current terrorism it is secular men with higher education who are most likely to be involved in it.

So both your arguments are dishonest

I'll continue discussing this once you learn what a hypothetical means.

Not to split hairs, but they're actually revising the hadiths - not the Qur'an.

It was my understanding that the hadiths are used to interpret the Quran. If the hadiths are revised then the Quran is re-interpreted no?

I'll continue discussing this once you learn what a hypothetical means.

Sure, as long as its not more dung on the anti-theist heap.

Who would have ever thought that the average westerner would be forced to learn (or at least have drilled into their heads) something that they never gave a fuck about (and rightly so)? I have enough trouble dealing with jehovas witnesses and other xian groups as it is, without having to deal with backward muslim belief systems piled on top of it.
...
...
...

Agreed. That is why Muslims have to take care of their own shit (not us)... and for the first time they are starting to do that.

Agreed. That is why Muslims have to take care of their own shit (not us)... and for the first time they are starting to do that.

You mean Muslims have to learn western language, culture and religious preconceptions because one language is too taxing for y'all :rolleyes:

You mean Muslims have to learn western language, culture and religious preconceptions because one language is too taxing for y'all :rolleyes:

No, I mean muslims have to learn how to adapt to modernity and reign in their extremist elements.

Who would have ever thought that the average westerner would be forced to learn (or at least have drilled into their heads) something that they never gave a fuck about (and rightly so)? I have enough trouble dealing with jehovas witnesses and other xian groups as it is, without having to deal with backward muslim belief systems piled on top of it.

Well, it isn't that difficult. Preferable to advising from Ann Coulter on Islam (which is the same as advising from all Western media really, on this subject).

Anyway, you should be obligated to make an attempt at understanding something you play a part in, even if just as a voter.

No, I mean muslims have to learn how to adapt to modernity and reign in their extremist elements.

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

No, I mean muslims have to learn how to adapt to modernity and reign in their extremist elements.

They seemed to be learning modernity in Afghanistan prior to Russia and the US coming over, resulting in the empowering of Bin Laden in place of women's rights and democracy. :shrug:

They seemed to be learning modernity in Afghanistan prior to Russia and the US coming over, resulting in the empowering of Bin Laden in place of women's rights and democracy. :shrug:

Looks like they have to take another go at it.

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

Fortunately, there are muslims out there whom are willing to actually work towards improvements:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7264903.stm

Fortunately, there are muslims out there whom are willing to actually work towards improvements:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7264903.stm

Probably get bombed into the stone age if the US gets a whiff.

S.A.M. or Kadark, what is your opinion on Crunchy-Cat's article? I've only skimmed it so far, but some examples of what it calls a radical revision already seem to exist in many places.

S.A.M. or Kadark, what is your opinion on Crunchy-Cat's article? I've only skimmed it so far, but some examples of what it calls a radical revision already seem to exist in many places.

Well lets sweep aside the rhetoric and look at facts:

Ankara university has no theological standing that I know of.

al Azhar in Egypt in number one, Deoband in India is second. Never heard of a prominent Islamic scholar from Ankara.

The Hadith is already a revised set of books since it was collected 100-400 years after Mohammed and scholars have rules about how Hadiths are used. The different statements are considered well cited or poorly cited based on accuracy of transmitters and who provided the Hadith. What revision beyond this is possible 1400 years later is inexplicable. Are they going to find out now that someone did not say it?:confused:

Recall, the accuracy of transmitters says nothing about accuracy of transmission but no change is possible retroactively.

Third, the secular movement has been in Turkey since 1923 (Atuturk) and has now gone back to religion with relaxation on the hijab and more popularity for religious political groups.

There is a very active creationist movement in Turkey allied to Christian evangelists in the US

Osama bin Laden is also following a reformed nontraditional form of Islam.

IOW, lets not count our chickens before they hatch.

Probably get bombed into the stone age if the US gets a whiff.

It's international news. The U.S. knows and we continue to give them support as opposed to a good old fashioned bombing.

No, I mean muslims have to learn how to adapt to modernity and reign in their extremist elements.

I guess they'll start (again) when we do.



VANDALS desecrated 148 Muslim graves in France's biggest war cemetery, hanging a pig's head from one tombstone and daubing slogans insulting France's Muslim justice minister, officials said today.

President Nicolas Sarkozy expressed "profound outrage" at the "sordid" attack on the Muslim quarter of the Notre Dame de Lorette cemetery, near the northern town of Arras last night.

He vowed that those responsible would be punished.

The cemetery is France's biggest military graveyards and commemorates tens of thousands of victims of a series of long and bloody battles for control of northern France at the start of World War I.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The state prosecutor for Arras, Jean-Pierre Valensi, said: "The slogans directly target Islam and they gravely insult Rachida Dati, the justice minister" who is the daughter of north African immigrants.

He said a pig's head was hung from one of the graves.

Ms Dati condemned the "hateful act" that "hurts the memory of our dead, of the veterans who gave their lives for France".

"Through its racist connotations, it is an assault on the values of the republic and an insult to all French people."

------------------------------------------------------------

The MRAP anti-racism group said the attack was "a worrying sign of an ill that is gaining ground with a degree of impunity: Islamophobia" and warned that France needed to face up to the problem.

------------------------------------------------------------

Prior to 2007, there were four incidents involving the desecration of Muslim graves in northern and eastern France in 2004, and one in 2003.

There have also been several attacks on Jewish graves in cemeteries across France in recent years.

(Source) (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23496593-401,00.html)

Well lets sweep aside the rhetoric and look at facts:

Ankara university has no theological standing that I know of.

al Azhar in Egypt in number one, Deoband in India is second. Never heard of a prominent Islamic scholar from Ankara.

The Hadith is already a revised set of books since it was collected 100-400 years after Mohammed and scholars have rules about how Hadiths are used. The different statements are considered well cited or poorly cited based on accuracy of transmitters and who provided the Hadith. What revision beyond this is possible 1400 years later is inexplicable. Are they going to find out now that someone did not say it?:confused:

Third, the secular movement has been in Turkey since 1923 (Atuturk) and has now gone back to religion with relaxation on the hijab and more popularity for religious political groups.

There is a very active creationist movement in Turkey allied to Christian evangelists in the US

Osama bin Laden is also following a reformed nontraditional form of Islam.

IOW, lets not count our chickens before they hatch.

Ah, ok.

Things like this:
Some messages ban women from travelling without their husband's permission... But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone

and:

There's also violence against women within families, including sexual harassment... This does not exist in Islam... we have to explain that to them

Seem to imply that the opposites happen, but this has not been my experience (in the case of the first quote, I obviously would not know the second one).

I guess they'll start (again) when we do.
...
...
...


They have to start regardless.

Ah, ok.

Things like this:

and:

Seem to imply that the opposites happen, but this has not been my experience (in the case of the first quote, I obviously would not know the second one).

When I read such things I always think.

Why would a modern country like Turkey need such "revisions" which scholars clearly know are not required as that hadith is not supported by the Quran (which takes precedence over all and any hadith)?

So I follow the money. Now what could Turkey gain from a reformation of the hadith - which you can be pretty sure, no Muslim except a very assiduous scholar has read all of them, even if they were pruned from hundreds of thousands to merely thousands; Bukhari, for instance, indicated only about 4000 of his 600,000 hadiths were probably authentic.

I'm guessing there is something else behind this sudden desire for reform.

Interesting, once again.

Once again I find I am clueless on this matter. The state of Islamic representation in Western media blows... (Proof: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=4361&edition=2&ttl=20080407054710)

Interesting, once again.

Once again I find I am clueless on this matter. The state of Islamic representation in Western media blows... (Proof: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=4361&edition=2&ttl=20080407054710)

Yeah. The thing is, most people see the Middle East and think ah, this is Islam. And they apply the known concepts about Christian orthodox structure to their little knowledge of Islam and think they know what it is.

Some simple hints:

1. There is no orthodox structure in Sunni Islam (over 90% of Muslims). No Big Daddy who tells anyone what to do, or what is right. So its literally every man for himself. Islam is within very broad definitions, what a Muslim decides it is.

2. The only steady influence is the Quran, which is in classical Arabic. Not many people actually read it, even Muslims. And of those who read it, many don't read it in the original. So there again you have a lot of diversity (hence the tendency to have so many local groups based on what some guy thinks of the religion)

3. Islamic scholars have varying opinions on almost everything, so there is very little consensus beyond there is God, Mohammed and Quran. Almost everything else is based on the whim of the people and the government. Completely.

4. Absolutely no one reads the Hadiths except people who are studying the religion. And the ones who study the Hadiths know that they are written 100-400 years later and the Quran takes precedence. Those who just read them casually are as clueless as a Crunchy Cat.:D

So based on all this, the only conclusion you can draw about Islam is that you cannot draw any conclusion based on what one person or imam or