Ben Affleck vs. Sam Harris & Bill Maher on Real Time

vibe666 wrote: »

sorry, but hows that any different than millions of christians believing the bible to be 100% factual, literal, infallible word of god?

the bible and the quran may be different in many ways, but they are both also very similar in many ways and are equally soaked in blood, probably even more so the bible if we're counting.

by virtue of the fact that none of the 50,000+ muslims in ireland have ever gone on a murderous rampage here and cut off anyones heads for not being muslim, I think we can pretty conclusively state that not all muslims are the same and that the quran IS open to interpretation, despite your assertion that i don't know what i'm talking about.

unless you think they're just waiting for the 'go' signal from ISIS of when they can all attack us at the same time?

hmmm, first off I made no comment about muslims acting violently or not. I am purely discussing the quran. I don't believe muslims are generally violent. Most christians are generally pretty calm too, even though the christian bible is as immoral beyond belief.
Attitudes to the removal of fit'na (idol worship or attempts to lead muslims from the path) from the world is very important to the teachings of Muhammed.

The bible is indeed 'soaked' in blood however the quran is viewed by scholars differently too than the bible.
The bible was 'revealed' (using the most fundamentalist viewpoint) directly, but to many different authors over thousands of years. There is 66 books in it, not one. The majority of christian theologians are quite liberal in how they view those books compared with the masses.
The quran however is theologically believed to be ONE perfect book, that refers to ITSELF (something the bible does not as a whole) and mandates that it cannot be changed and that it is one of the greatest sins to even try.
It is supposedly made by God beforehand, and exists outside of time and space (the golden quran). The holy quran currently is a COPY of it supposedly. This does make a difference, at least it should if you believe in the creator of the universe and don't want to go to hell.
The morman leader Joe Smith actually used some of the features of the Islamic faith for his cult, including golden plates, given by an angel and taken back, revealed over time to suite his needs and with rules that changed older ones when suited. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your viewpoint) allows for continuous revelation (hence the revision on blacks being treated badly by Mormons and polygamy) while the quran states that it is FINISHED and perfect and that there will be no more prophets until the end of the world.
These all matter when trying to make a dent in an outdated religion. I hope I made that point.

There are plenty of nicer passages that get interpreted by certain muslims, ESPECIALLY those that live in the West. The majority of muslims are NOT in the West, and a sizable majority of Muslims cannot read the quran for themselves (poor education) and rely on their imans to educate them, resulting in a very wide mix of viewpoints. However to counter those viewpoints the quran still remains an issue.

Here is an example: No complusion in religion. This is a VERY common statement by those making out that Islam is peaceful and compatible with the Western cultures.
This is not accurate and the history of Islam repeatedly shows that in practice.
The process of levying a tax on people of the book (jews and christians) to allow them to exist in an Islamic state under their 'protection' is one form of complusion.
Polytheists and atheists don't even get that option historically. Convert or leave (or die) is repeatedly the response.
Muhammed in Surah 9 promotes violence to make people join Islam. Read it yourself. This is the most perfect example that any muslim could wish for. Muhammed is loved beyond any other person in Islamic history.
Once you join you CANNOT leave Islam without complusion being put on you to return.
This deals with apostates. The quran is filled with threats of hellfire and allah constantly mocks and ridicules non believers in it at every opportunity in every way.
The concept of Dhimmi is that non muslims that refuse to convert but pay their protection tax are to be humbled. They are 2nd or 3rd class citizens. they are NEVER to be seen as equal or above a muslim.
I have read on Muslim forms that even bad muslims (those that don't follow Islam properly) are better than non believers who have no hope at all.

Once again I am not saying that your average western muslim cannot wait to kill you. No and if you read the quran you might understand why killing is only allowed in certain circumstances and in certain areas (Sharia implementation for example). Muslims are PEOPLE first and their own innate sense of morality means they shy away from the worst parts of the quran whenever they can. The problem is that the quran will ALWAYS have those parts and give authority for their reinactement if needed.

Nodin wrote: »

.....no muslim majority state, or any state for that matter, charges a "dhimmi tax". Not a one.

Google Jizya and read the long wiki article. Scroll to the very bottom to see modern day examples. As a newbie I cannot post links. Sorry.
Wrong, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant have reportedly done it in 2014. The fact that there are very few truly Islamic states and as many muslims will tell you if you ask for an example of a TRUE Islamic state, none, not even Saudi Arabia, enact the full sharia. Not all muslims want full sharia, but that is in the quran and those that do can quote verbatim to prove their point.
All throughout the history of Islam it has been applied whereever possible, or a version thereof.

Nodin wrote: »

.....no muslim majority state, or any state for that matter, charges a "dhimmi tax". Not a one.

Google Jizya and read the long wiki article. Scroll to the very bottom to see modern day examples. As a newbie I cannot post links. Sorry.
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant have reportedly done it in 2014. The fact that there are very few truly Islamic states and as many muslims will tell you if you ask for an example of a TRUE Islamic state, none, not even Saudi Arabia, enact the full sharia. Not all muslims want full sharia, but that is in the quran and those that do can quote verbatim to prove their point.
All throughout the history of Islam it has been applied whereever possible, or a version thereof.

Also my point is more than what is currently happening in regard to the complusion issue. My point was that the quran can be used at ANY time to justify reinstatement of the statements in it. The jizya is not central to islam, its a tactic that can be used for various economic or political ends. If it is LESS profitable to use jizya then why would they do so? The reason they don't is it makes them look oppressive yet I have consistantly read posts and articles on muslim sites taking about using it and that there is nothing wrong with it since Muslims have their own obligatory taxes to pay as well.
This is a very complex and convoluted topic and I am sorry if I have not been flawless in my delivery but I think I have been fairly factual in my concerns about the quran.
Some things are optional in the quran, some are not. Some apply to certain circumstances and will become active once those circumstances come about. The quran has a LOT of info in it after all, its not like the crappy 10 commandments that christians go on about.

Ok Nodin, I take your point, although some groups do still try and succeed at times to enact it. I was not stating that today it was being used across all muslim states, I was using it as a counter to the idea that there is no complusion to accept Islam that many preach as if it was never the case.

vibe666 wrote: »

not at all. it's not because it's Maher, I agree he makes a lot of good points and he is usually spot on with most of what he says, with only one or two exceptions.

I agree. It's rare that you'll find someone wit whom you have zero disagreements. It just doesn't happen.

vibe666 wrote: »

My own GP and the surgeon that performed major surgery on my spine earlier this year to keep me out of a wheelchair for the rest of my life are both muslim and both are aware that I'm an atheist, yet despite the fact that both have had ample opportunities to murder me and get away clean, neither of them have

Can you prove it? Maybe you're a ghost writer.

vibe666 wrote: »

I've even seen several gays in both their waiting rooms during my many visits there in the last year or so and I don't for a minute believe that any of them were treated any differently than I was.

We have laws. They are muslims in Ireland, which isn't to say that Egyptian/ Iranian GP's whip out their sword at the mere sight of a gay patient. That would be 'bloody' ludicrous.

vibe666 wrote: »

my point being, YES areas of Islam have a lot of work to do to join the rest of us in the 21st century, but much as not all christian denominations believe the same as southern baptists, not all muslims believe all non-muslims, gays, sluts and apostates deserve to be beheaded or stoned to death and many of them believe similar things and live their lives just as most of the rest of us do.

"Don't hate the player, hate the game." What I mean is, we can disagree with the religion, but who wants to disagree with every single muslim, it's silly. Islam is taken far too seriously, just like Mormonism, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism etc etc. Would it help if the holy books were attacked, for the sake of clarity?

It's not so long ago that parents here turfed their daughters out of their homes because they were pregnant. We all know the tragic and despicable history. No amount of money could make me throw my daughter out of the house for getting pregnant, but back in those days, all it took was religion. Religious folks should be seen as victims, for a plethora of obvious reasons.

vibe666 wrote: »

everything is open to interpretation (especially very old religious texts), that is why (much like christianity) there are many branches of Islam with different people believing different things.

for every nasty verse in the quran there is an equally nasty verse in the bible, just like there are nice, peaceful verses in both. it's not the book, it's the people who read it. if you are a nasty person, you will use the nastiness in it to justify your views and actions, exactly the same as any other religion.

this is exactly how 'loving' christians (amongst many other heinous crimes) can cherry pick parts of their good book to starve, freeze and beat their kids to death to 'discipline' them the way the bible tells them to.

You've summed up how utterly useless these ancient 'holy' texts are. Goat herders man. Goat herders.

vibe666 wrote: »

there is good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things in (and outside of) every religion.

To finish the above sentence, "but it takes religion to get good people to do bad things." You're welcome.


Here's a photo which appeared on the net some years back, showing Egyptian Christians, forming a ring around Muslims as they prayed, to protect them from protesters.



Bunch of hippies. :rolleyes:

Dave! wrote: »

Just stumbled upon this

Its a good video that helps explain Sam's views calmly and rationally. Support those that actually seek reform rather than those that seek to ignore the elephant in the room.

Nodin wrote: »

This is the full quote - I see no reference to religion there

"The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists."

Really? Did you read your OWN quote or the article. I did.
"...looming problem of religious extremism.." demonstrates the link with religion, I would have thought that was pretty clear.
"Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren’t." is in the paragraph above that one showing the context that the following paragraph refers to.
This is a repeat of the paragraph above that one (two above the one you quoted from):
"Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game."

Also note that same acknowledges that Islamic fascism is not precise:
"There is no question that the phrase is imprecise — Islamists are not technically fascists, and the term ignores a variety of schisms that exist even among Islamists"