BF2S Forums religions of violence

Ty wrote:

Lowing you clearly don't get it so I'm obviously wasting my time. I thought this debate was on whether one particular religion could be deemed to be violent, you're talking about a part of Islam who by all acount are violent. But we're talking about a whole religion here with an approximate 1.8 billion followers. You're looking at an incredibly complex thing Lowing, you think you can make judgements based on some very simple and uneducated ideas? Of course you can't. People spend their whole lives studying religion and come up with nothing. You're so confident of your own argument that you're refusing to actually think. You simply can't come up with a rational and logical conclusion with this mindset.

I will point out that if you want to be the accomplished debater you seem to want to be that you check your sources instead of repeating the panicked idiocy of others with no actual alanysis or rational thought on your part. Mohammed married and had sex with an eight year old - married. This means that it was deemed to be a union acceptable to society. You can't judge this by today's norms and the fact that you are makes you no better than the nutjob Islam extremists who teach that everything in the Quaran is to be taken to the letter.

You might be right, and your dismissing, justifying, rationalizing and ignoring what the hell is happening all around you leaves you just as mis-informed as you claim I am.

the thing is, you did not address a single point I made in my last post, except the 8 year old girl he fucked and all you did there was justify it as well. You did not deny one thing I presented. All  you did was tell me basically, I am not looking at the whole relgion/culture. I condend that I have seen enough of it to be convinced there is nothing in it I will find appealing. I feel am not missing out on a damn thing by not accepting it or wanting it.

As far as being a debater all I need is an opinion and something to back them up. Islam is violent, and there is plenty to back that up. Muhammed was a murderer, there is plenty to back that up. Now, I suppose if you think he was not a murder, ans Islam is not a violent relgion/culture, you might wanna find something to back that up. Problem is, I have current events, sharia Law and history on my side.

Also to be a good debater means that you do not call someone elses POV idiocy, uneducated or irrational simply because they are not your POV. Instead prove me wrong, prove to me Muhamnmad was a man of peace and Sharia Law is tolerant. Good luck

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-18 20:04:45)

Ty wrote:

lowing wrote:

You might be right, and your dismissing, justifying, rationalizing and ignoring what the hell is happening all around you leaves you just as mis-informed as you claim I am.

When did I ever do that? You're assuming I have a stance on this issue - I don't, I never have - truth be told I simply don't know enough. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I take a polarising viewpoint.

lowing wrote:

the thing is, you did not address a single point I made in my last post, except the 8 year old girl he fucked and all you did there was justify it as well. You did not deny one thing I presented. All  you did was tell me basically, I am not looking at the whole relgion/culture. I contend that I have seen enough of it to be convinced there is nothing in it I will find appealing. I feel am not missing out on a damn thing by not accepting it or wanting it.

You're right I didn't. That's because again, my point is not to say that "Islam is NOT a religion of violence," it's to say, "to determine whether Islam is a religion of violence or not you can not take a simplistic approach." By your own admission you are taking a simplistic approach and that's fine, there's some value in that. However you're insisting that your view is the correct one, you are unwaving in support of your own opinions. You've engaged me and others in lengthy debate trying to show just how wrong we are when you really have no idea whether you're right or wrong - you don't even seem to really care.

lowing wrote:

As far as being a debater all I need is an opinion and something to back them up. Islam is violent, and there is plenty to back that up. Muhammed was a murderer, there is plenty to back that up. Now, I suppose if you think he was not a murder, ans Islam is not a violent religion/culture, you might wanna find something to back that up. Problem is, I have current events, sharia Law and history on my side.

Ignoring the second-to-last sentence which I've already explained - I consider a debate to be more than just two opinions smashed together until one gives up. Unfortunately that seems to be the style of debate over the Internet. To have a debate you must be willing to exchange ideas, not just continually hit someone else over the head with your idea and hope they eventually accept it. You talk about your sources - "I have current events, Sharia Law and History on my side" - but really you haven't even analised any of these sources, you've just taken the bits that conform to your predetermined conclusion and run with them.

That being said I respect your steadfastness I just don't see it as a positive quality in a debate.

If you have no opinion on this issue, really, what are you doing in this thread?

Well let me ask you, if you intend on ignoring history, Islamic law, current events, I am wondering what you do intend to use as information regarding Islam to determine an opinion. I really have no interest in convincing anyone I am right and you are wrong. If you hadn't noticed, I am not the one on this forum attacking others, and calling them names or insulting their intelligence because I disagree with their opinions. some may not share my opinion, that is really something I can live with. However if they want to talk about it, I will do so. As far as caring if I am right or wrong, I do. I just find it so ridiculously absurd to read how Islam today is no different than Christianity when clearly it is.


I am all for exchanging ideas, however those ideas must be steeped in reality, and regarding Islam, peaceful, tolerant, accommodating are simply NOT realistic adjectives.  Example, the cartoon riots by "moderate Muslims", what more should I need to analize to determain just how fucked up that was or wasn't? My opinion regarding shit just like that is spot on.

but ty those 1.8bil people who don't cut peoples heads off arent real muslims! because the only true muslims are the ones that throw acid in peoples faces and all that fun stuff!

Ty wrote:

I do have an opinion. My opinion is that this issue is not black and white, my opinion is that this issue cannot be explained and justified using an incredibly simplistic approach. If this is not a valid opinion for this discussion then I won't bother any more but personally I think it is.

I don't ignore history, in fact with you saying things like this:

"living in the here and now, and not really giving a shit what happened 1100 years ago, current events has my attention."

I though if anyone ignored history it was you. I don't ignore Islamic law, in fact I don't just look at the law itself I look at how it is applied by different groups, I consider how it has changed and I consider how it is interpreted. I certainly don't ignore curent events but to determine whether a religion - an ancient and complex institution that is many centuries old -  is "violent", looking at the present can only be so helpful.

I was wondering if you could ever bring yourself to acknowledge that while your argument proves that violence is evident within Islam it does nothing to catagorise the ancient institution of Islam as being based on violence. Do you really think that 1.8 billion people would want violence and suffering to be an integral part of their everyday lives?

Nope, I think 1.8 billion people belong to a religion that teaches convertion or death to non-believers. wether or not they practice that belief is a different issue. My opinion is, if they do not practice that teaching, then they are not practicing their religion.

Actually I don't ignore history either, but it only goes toward a pattern. Islamic violence and intolerance dates back to Muhammad, however, it is the here and now that is relevant to me since well, it is when I live. there is nothing in the history of Islam that can be looked back upon and be baffled as to why it is the way it is today.

lowing wrote:

Ty wrote:

I do have an opinion. My opinion is that this issue is not black and white, my opinion is that this issue cannot be explained and justified using an incredibly simplistic approach. If this is not a valid opinion for this discussion then I won't bother any more but personally I think it is.

I don't ignore history, in fact with you saying things like this:

"living in the here and now, and not really giving a shit what happened 1100 years ago, current events has my attention."

I though if anyone ignored history it was you. I don't ignore Islamic law, in fact I don't just look at the law itself I look at how it is applied by different groups, I consider how it has changed and I consider how it is interpreted. I certainly don't ignore curent events but to determine whether a religion - an ancient and complex institution that is many centuries old -  is "violent", looking at the present can only be so helpful.

I was wondering if you could ever bring yourself to acknowledge that while your argument proves that violence is evident within Islam it does nothing to catagorise the ancient institution of Islam as being based on violence. Do you really think that 1.8 billion people would want violence and suffering to be an integral part of their everyday lives?

Nope, I think 1.8 billion people belong to a religion that teaches convertion or death to non-believers. wether or not they practice that belief is a different issue. My opinion is, if they do not practice that teaching, then they are not practicing their religion.

Actually I don't ignore history either, but it only goes toward a pattern. Islamic violence and intolerance dates back to Muhammad, however, it is the here and now that is relevant to me since well, it is when I live. there is nothing in the history of Islam that can be looked back upon and be baffled as to why it is the way it is today.

In that case all Christians are obviously not practising their faith.

Also you say how it is today. Islam today is not the exact teachings of hundreds of years ago, just like practically all other religions. If by "Islam" you mean "Radical Fundamental Islamic Extremists" then your statement might actually make sense.

Nope, I think 1.8 billion people belong to a religion that teaches convertion or death to non-believers. wether or not they practice that belief is a different issue. My opinion is, if they do not practice that teaching, then they are not practicing their religion.

Actually I don't ignore history either, but it only goes toward a pattern. Islamic violence and intolerance dates back to Muhammad, however, it is the here and now that is relevant to me since well, it is when I live. there is nothing in the history of Islam that can be looked back upon and be baffled as to why it is the way it is today.

Not really.

Islamic fundementalism in its modern form only really started in the 20th century.

Before that Islam was pretty similar to the Catholic Church (in context that is) - read: Islamic Caliphate/Golden Age.

By the way lowing, whoever said that the rioting Muslims were moderate? The entire point of moderates is that they don't protest over things like that, so you don't see them. That's the "silent majority" - they don't care or involve themselves in these things, they just go about their daily lives like the rest of us.

Besides, have YOU ever met an extremist? Maybe you can tell me how common they are in your life (because I've yet to meet one, and I've yet to meet one who's met one)

lowing wrote:

Nope, I think 1.8 billion people belong to a religion that teaches convertion or death to non-believers. wether or not they practice that belief is a different issue. My opinion is, if they do not practice that teaching, then they are not practicing their religion.

While your argument up until this point has been plausable I'm afraid what you're suggesting is ludicrous. If people don't kill, blow themselves up and preach hatred then they're not practising Islam right? Do you seriously believe that? Do you even know what suggesting that means?

Either way it seems odd to me that you're quite content to say people like Timothy McVeigh were not praticing their religion correctly yet seem fully committed to the idea that people blowing themselves up in the name of Islam were practising it exactly as it was intended. It simply makes no sense. Why would you think that? Because there's a few passages in the Quaran that seem to suggest it? Well let me try something then.

I'd like to quote a Bible verse, I'm not very good at it but it's the best I can do. This is Mark 16:16 - "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned."

This is a pretty obvious verse. It's saying that if you're baptised and believe in Jesus you'll be saved and go to Heaven, if you haven't been baptised and if you don't believe in Jesus than you're going to go to Hell. Right?

I don't say that this is right. I say that this is a message for Christians to rise up against the non-believers! To damn those who are not baptised and do not follow the way of our lord! Perform this great service as told by the great diciple Mark!

This is bollocks of course. However it's certainly not outlandish to suggest it can be interpreted this way. Mark 16:16 was one of the main verses that suggested to the Crusaders that their war on Islam was a good idea. It has still been interpreted today as a condonement of the actions of racist hate-groups, (obviously just focusing on the last part of that verse.)

Religious texts by their very nature are vague and ambiguous. The Quaran is no different from the Bible in that regard. Interpretations are left for people to determine and people will interpret their holy book of choice in whatever way suits them best. For many this does mean interpreting passages of the Quaran to encourage people to kill and die in the name of Islam. You're content to label this minority - and it is a very small minority - as the ones who have interpreted the Quaran correctly. That makes no sense to me, I'm surprised it makes sense to you. By what logic can you make this assumption?

lowing wrote:

Actually I don't ignore history either, but it only goes toward a pattern. Islamic violence and intolerance dates back to Muhammad, however, it is the here and now that is relevant to me since well, it is when I live. there is nothing in the history of Islam that can be looked back upon and be baffled as to why it is the way it is today.

I disagree but I'm not going to go into that with you because simply put there is evidence for my position and evidence for yours, none of which comes to a concrete conclusion.

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

Well, I don't know about you but the internet and the media are about the only things I have at my disposal in keeping up with what is happening in the world. I suppose by your objection, you must travel all over the world and investigate everything for yourself. I simply don't have that luxury or time.

haven't an idea crossed your mind, lowing, that your media and internetz migth be a wee bit biased considering the place you live in? you don't have time to travel? - k, no prob, but you do have time to talk to some of those muslims who live in usa, don't you? you also seem to have time enough to post on the forums - might as well spend some of that to read the bloody book on which the violent and intolerant religion is supposedly based, no? because, quite frankly, your "who the fuck needs to research that - it's on the internetz!"-stuff is getting old.

lowing wrote:

Tell ya what, instead of insulting me, prove to me the news and the internet was lying about the so called "moderate Muslims" erupting into riots over cartoons.

tell ya what: i'll give you all the proof you want after you remind me where exactly i claimed or implied whatever is it you want me to prove. you may also want to explain what exactly do those riots over cartoons have to do with this discussion.

I spoke with several Muslims while in Iraq, I found them ALL to be extremely friendly people. I have no need to read a book in order to try and rationalize or justify the very real and undeniable violence committed in the name of Islam and jihad.


You mean you have no idea how "religious violence" could possibly be tied to the cartoon riots? really?

Ty wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, I think 1.8 billion people belong to a religion that teaches conversion or death to non-believers. weather or not they practice that belief is a different issue. My opinion is, if they do not practice that teaching, then they are not practicing their religion.

While your argument up until this point has been plausable I'm afraid what you're suggesting is ludicrous. If people don't kill, blow themselves up and preach hatred then they're not practising Islam right? Do you seriously believe that? Do you even know what suggesting that means?

Either way it seems odd to me that you're quite content to say people like Timothy McVeigh were not praticing their religion correctly yet seem fully committed to the idea that people blowing themselves up in the name of Islam were practising it exactly as it was intended. It simply makes no sense. Why would you think that? Because there's a few passages in the Quaran that seem to suggest it? Well let me try something then.

I'd like to quote a Bible verse, I'm not very good at it but it's the best I can do. This is Mark 16:16 - "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned."

This is a pretty obvious verse. It's saying that if you're baptised and believe in Jesus you'll be saved and go to Heaven, if you haven't been baptised and if you don't believe in Jesus than you're going to go to Hell. Right?

I don't say that this is right. I say that this is a message for Christians to rise up against the non-believers! To damn those who are not baptised and do not follow the way of our lord! Perform this great service as told by the great diciple Mark!

This is bollocks of course. However it's certainly not outlandish to suggest it can be interpreted this way. Mark 16:16 was one of the main verses that suggested to the Crusaders that their war on Islam was a good idea. It has still been interpreted today as a condonement of the actions of racist hate-groups, (obviously just focusing on the last part of that verse.)

Religious texts by their very nature are vague and ambiguous. The Quaran is no different from the Bible in that regard. Interpretations are left for people to determine and people will interpret their holy book of choice in whatever way suits them best. For many this does mean interpreting passages of the Quaran to encourage people to kill and die in the name of Islam. You're content to label this minority - and it is a very small minority - as the ones who have interpreted the Quaran correctly. That makes no sense to me, I'm surprised it makes sense to you. By what logic can you make this assumption?

lowing wrote:

Actually I don't ignore history either, but it only goes toward a pattern. Islamic violence and intolerance dates back to Muhammad, however, it is the here and now that is relevant to me since well, it is when I live. there is nothing in the history of Islam that can be looked back upon and be baffled as to why it is the way it is today.

I disagree but I'm not going to go into that with you because simply put there is evidence for my position and evidence for yours, none of which comes to a concrete conclusion.

If people are not following Sharia Law, are not engaged in the spreading of Islam, then no, they are not following their religion.

I agree, we are at an impasse and like I said earlier, if we can not agree on the basic tenants of Islam and its intolerance and violence, then we will never agree on anything.

lowing wrote:

If people are not following Sharia Law, are not engaged in the spreading of Islam, then no, they are not following their religion.

I agree, we are at an impasse and like I said earlier, if we can not agree on the basic tenants of Islam and its intolerance and violence, then we will never agree on anything.

I assume that you believe the same for all religions. Hell, where do you draw the line in that case? Even the people who conform to your view of "proper Islam" don't follow everything to the letter, they can't, religion is contradictory and as previously mentioned, vague. No one person can be said to be following a religion "correctly" and in this case it is more logical to assume that those engaging in violence and blowing themselves up are the ones who have it wrong. Given the fact that these people are the significant minority strengthens this.

Look at Al Quaeda. This is a group that you would think are practicing Islam correctly and a group I would call misguided. Firstly, they don't want to spread Islam. They want to simply block out the west so they can maintain the power they do have. Secondly, top leaders of Al Quaeda have problems with substance abuse - Osama Bin Laden among them. They even drink! These guys certainly don't have it right and if this extremist goup is not practising Islam correctly then who the bloody Hell is?

But Al Quaeda are a bunch of fucking loonies, their actions support this. To come to the conclusion that these men are logical, rational and follow a set of ancient rules exactly as they were intended is... well it's insanity. As I've been saying all this time religion is left up to people to interpret. Al Quaeda are no different to any religious group, they're interpreting their religion to mean what they want it to mean. Your "radical" Islamists who are peaceful and tolerant have interpreted their religion to mean what they want it to mean. It's the same religion, it's not "one group practising it correctly and one group practising it incorrectly" because the line between correct and incorrect is impossible to draw.

Ty wrote:

lowing wrote:

If people are not following Sharia Law, are not engaged in the spreading of Islam, then no, they are not following their religion.

I agree, we are at an impasse and like I said earlier, if we can not agree on the basic tenants of Islam and its intolerance and violence, then we will never agree on anything.

I assume that you believe the same for all religions. Hell, where do you draw the line in that case? Even the people who conform to your view of "proper Islam" don't follow everything to the letter, they can't, religion is contradictory and as previously mentioned, vague. No one person can be said to be following a religion "correctly" and in this case it is more logical to assume that those engaging in violence and blowing themselves up are the ones who have it wrong. Given the fact that these people are the significant minority strengthens this.

Look at Al Quaeda. This is a group that you would think are practicing Islam correctly and a group I would call misguided. Firstly, they don't want to spread Islam. They want to simply block out the west so they can maintain the power they do have. Secondly, top leaders of Al Quaeda have problems with substance abuse - Osama Bin Laden among them. They even drink! These guys certainly don't have it right and if this extremist goup is not practising Islam correctly then who the bloody Hell is?

But Al Quaeda are a bunch of fucking loonies, their actions support this. To come to the conclusion that these men are logical, rational and follow a set of ancient rules exactly as they were intended is... well it's insanity. As I've been saying all this time religion is left up to people to interpret. Al Quaeda are no different to any religious group, they're interpreting their religion to mean what they want it to mean. Your "radical" Islamists who are peaceful and tolerant have interpreted their religion to mean what they want it to mean. It's the same religion, it's not "one group practising it correctly and one group practising it incorrectly" because the line between correct and incorrect is impossible to draw.

One question, who more emulates the teachings and life of Muhammad ( the founder of Islam), Al Quaeda or a peace loving tolerant man? Lets try and be honest here.

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-20 01:23:08)

In the context of history is a phrase you don't fully understand lowing ...

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

In the context of history is a phrase you don't fully understand lowing ...

Nope I completely understand, and since Jesus lived even before Muhammad, when man was 600 years YOUNGER, I think the differences between right and wrong and violence and non-violence were long established.

Muhammad was a warrior and murdered his surrendered enemies. Jesus never picked up a sword against anyone, even against those who killed him Not to sure what historical context you are looking for to justify Muhammad's actions in his life.

So would you then think that, in the WWJD-context, it would be better that the ME would never have been attacked, and that we/you should've just turned the other cheek?