Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

''Islam is a religion of peace'' (debate)

1…1819202123

Comments

  • #662
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    old hippy wrote: »
    Most religions have peace at the core.
    Most religions talk about peace, and are prepared to commit whatever violence it takes to ensure it comes about.


  • #663
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    old hippy wrote: »
    Most religions have peace at the core. It's the individual agendas, cultisms and angry males that tend to fck it up, sadly.

    The propagation of ignorance is what is at the core of most religions.


  • #664
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Just when it seemed this thread had gone away... :pac:


  • #665
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    muppeteer wrote: »
    I wouldn't really call it debunked when the data still stands. It might add some clarification, but the major claim still stands, that of all assault type rape was by identified perperatrators of middle-eastern or aisan origin.
    The idea that this supports a belief in Islam mean that you are more likely to rape is debunked. See for yourself:
    The ethnic profile varies within the different types of rape, but for all types except assault rape the largest group is composed of Norwegian perpetrators. Assault rape only comprises 6 cases, however, and the same perpetrator was responsible for two of these (there were 5 unique suspects/persons seen in 6 reports). In 4 of the six reports (3 unique men) the perpetrator was from the Middle-East, in one assault rape the man was from Africa, and in another, from Asia.
    Claims that all assault rapes are committed by foreigners are thus supported by these figures, although the basis for the claims is small and the selection is special. Two of the five different identified perpetrators responsible for the assault rapes were very young – less than 18 – and two had serious psychiatric diagnoses. If you extend the material to cover the 16 assault rape cases in which the person is unidentified, but where a description has been provided by the victim, another picture emerges: 8 of the perpetrators were of African/dark-skinned appearance, 5 were western/fair-haired/Nordic and 4 looked Asian.
    muppeteer wrote: »
    And the blogger uses zionist paranoia language far, far too much to lend himself much credability outside the tinfoil hat brigade.:rolleyes:
    I actually have no idea what you are talking about. Could you give some examples of "zionist paranoia language"?


  • #666
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    old hippy wrote: »
    There's plenty of calls for violence and smighting and vengeance in the bible as well but people tend to focus on the good things, oddly

    I don't think you realise what forum you are in...


  • Advertisement
  • #667
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    old hippy wrote: »
    There's plenty of calls for violence and smighting and vengeance in the bible as well but people tend to focus on the good things, oddly

    Does that lessen my previous point? The quran was only an example, the bible and your own post further confirms what I said, not contradict it.


  • #668
    Cork24
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,663 ✭✭✭Cork24


    The bible is full of unlawful acts. Both texts created by man to place fear in their followers...

    I get the born again ppl calling all the time tell me every thing is bad.

    Muslim is a very well practice way of living, in all religions you have both sides the ones that just want to live in peace and the ones that would just kill

    To brush all muslims with the one brush is no what we should do

    "check out a video on YouTube" it's called want your mind blow


  • #669
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    robindch wrote: »
    Most religions talk about peace, and are prepared to commit whatever violence it takes to ensure it comes about.
    ... Yet a 2010 Gallup poll showed that atheists/agnostics in the US were more likely to support actions by a military "to target and kill" civilians than Muslims.
    target%20and%20kill%20civilians.jpg

    And atheists/agnostics polled in the US were more like to support terrorist actions that "target and kill" civilians also.

    people%20killing%20civilians.jpg


  • #670
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    My new goal in life is to give an academic presentation wherein I can fit a pie chart flanked with goatse hands, and get away with it.

    Just thought that might be relevant.


  • #671
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    ... Yet a 2010 Gallup poll showed that atheists/agnostics in the US were more likely to support actions by a military "to target and kill" civilians than Muslims.
    target%20and%20kill%20civilians.jpg

    And atheists/agnostics polled in the US were more like to support terrorist actions that "target and kill" civilians also.

    people%20killing%20civilians.jpg

    Saying something in a poll is still just talking about it when you think about it.


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,957 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    bnt wrote: »
    Didn't we have this discussion before? I came away from that one with a simple conclusion: Islam can be a religion of peace ... if everyone is a Muslim. It can't be truly peaceful in a world containing other religions, or no religion. If Islam ever conquers the world, then it will be a religion of peace. Or else. mad.gif
    robindch wrote: »
    It's more likely that most religions, when there's no more outfighting to do, will turn to infighting.
    That too. I didn't speculate on just how long such a "peace" would last. Or maybe "Islam" will be one sect by then e.g. if the Ibadi develop mind control weapons and use them on everyone else. :rolleyes:

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • #673
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    ... Yet a 2010 Gallup poll showed that atheists/agnostics in the US were more likely to support actions by a military "to target and kill" civilians than Muslims.

    How did you manage to come to that conclusion from the graphs below?


    target%20and%20kill%20civilians.jpg


    So, people who think military action against civilians is never justified, in order:

    Muslim - 78%
    A&A - 56%
    Jewish - 43%
    Catholic - 39%
    Protestant - 38%
    Mormon - 33%

    So more atheists condemn military action than jews, catholics protestants or mormons.

    Taking the "military action against civilians is sometimes justified" we see:

    Mormon - 64%
    Protestant - 58%
    Catholic - 58%
    Jewish - 52%
    A&A - 43%
    Muslim - 21%

    So again atheists have the second lowest response in favour of military action against civilians and yet you're claiming the opposite. In fact, the data in the first graph seems to be broadly correlative with personal experience of ongoing conflict with both Jews and Muslims voting against military action and Mormons voting in favour of it.




    And atheists/agnostics polled in the US were more like to support terrorist actions that "target and kill" civilians also.

    people%20killing%20civilians.jpg

    Again with this graph, I'm not sure how you managed to come to your conclusions. In this scenario all groups score highly on the never justified column and low on the sometimes justified column with atheists again scoring the second highest on never justified and third lowest on sometimes justified.

    Maybe you might want to re-examine?


  • #674
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    You appear to have misinterpreted my psot and/or the data. The poll results support my point.


  • #675
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You appear to have misinterpreted my psot and/or the data. The poll results support my point.

    Yes, BB you're right, my apologies. I didn't spot the "than Muslims" part. However, robindch in his post which you quoted did say most religions which is also entirely borne out by the data in the graphs.


  • #676
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Sarky wrote: »
    My new goal in life is to give an academic presentation wherein I can fit a pie chart flanked with goatse hands, and get away with it.

    Just thought that might be relevant.

    Or you could just create your new statistical graphic technique which would be based on something like the Chernoff face but would include that aforementioned goatse. The Chernoff-Sarky Ass perhaps?


  • #677
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    robindch wrote: »
    Most religions talk about peace, and are prepared to commit whatever violence it takes to ensure it comes about.
    ...Yet a 2010 Gallup poll showed that atheists/agnostics in the US were more likely to support actions by a military "to target and kill" civilians than Muslims.
    My original post stressed that religions talk about peace -- indeed, one could be forgiven for thinking that religious people discussing religion often seem to talk about little more than their love of and on behalf of their deity, and the best way that this heavenly love can be persuaded to appear on earth.

    Unfortunately, the more fundamentalist the religion, the more likely it is that the individual believer is prepared to resort to violence to execute his/her religious ends.

    You -- unintentionally, and Gallup UAE, whence that survey (almost certainly intentionally) -- are making a fundamental error in thinking that religious people practice the love they constantly preach.

    They don't, and that's the point I was making.


  • #678
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Let me sum up

    Robin - Religions tend to talk a lot about peace but this is not backed up in their actions.

    Brown Bomber - I completely disagree, here is a poll showing religious people talking a lot about peace

    Robin - Groan.

    :p

    For example, how many Muslims vote for a political party in America who sanction drone attacks (which often kill civilians) in elections?

    It is easy to talk.


  • #679
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Let me sum up

    Robin - Religions tend to talk a lot about peace but this is not backed up in their actions.

    Brown Bomber - I completely disagree, here is a poll showing religious people talking a lot about peace

    Robin - Groan.

    :p
    Answering in a poll isn't talking about peace to be fair, anymore than voting in an election is. (IMO at least)
    Zombrex wrote: »
    For example, how many Muslims vote for a political party in America who sanction drone attacks (which often kill civilians) in elections?

    It is easy to talk.
    I'm not entirely sure what the above is an example of, especially since the CIA carry out most drone attacks, but it gives me an opportunity to ask you a question. What percentage of drone attacks - through history - have targetted non-Muslims? I don't believe there have ever been even one.

    These attacks have killed thousands of Muslim civilians, including 160 Muslim children, often from the same families.

    Using your singular example could it be that the evil teachings of religion, specifically Islam is not the motivation for all Islamic terrorism but it is a response to perceived injustice?

    Well it could be and is. A good example is the would-be Times Square bomber in 2010 who was motivated by CIA drone attacks in Pakistan.


  • #680
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    robindch wrote: »
    My original post stressed that religions talk about peace -- indeed, one could be forgiven for thinking that religious people discussing religion often seem to talk about little more than their love of and on behalf of their deity, and the best way that this heavenly love can be persuaded to appear on earth.

    Unfortunately, the more fundamentalist the religion, the more likely it is that the individual believer is prepared to resort to violence to execute his/her religious ends.

    You -- unintentionally, and Gallup UAE, whence that survey (almost certainly intentionally) -- are making a fundamental error in thinking that religious people practice the love they constantly preach.

    They don't, and that's the point I was making.
    You don't think that Martin Luther King Jr, a Christian fundamentalist, practiced the love he preached?


  • #681
    Jaafa
    Registered Users Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    Has Prof.Robert Pape's extensive study on Islamic terrorism been mentioned here yet?


  • Advertisement
  • #682
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Jaafa wrote: »
    Has Prof.Robert Pape's extensive study on Islamic terrorism been mentioned here yet?
    Yeah it was mentioned. Ignored though.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74066447&postcount=271

    Except for this single response full of the usual ignorant anti-Muslim nonsense.
    Concerning the proffesor, his thesis falls apart when you consider that radical Muslim groups are defined by their wish to spread the Ummah everywhere, they consider everywhere their "homeland" just look at east Timor for proof of that. Not that it matters to the argument, but even if his view was a fact ( they are not, it is very much a dissenting opinion) then the nature of radical Islam would make it irrelevant in a policy sense.


  • #683
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Yes, BB you're right, my apologies. I didn't spot the "than Muslims" part. However, robindch in his post which you quoted did say most religions which is also entirely borne out by the data in the graphs.
    No apology neccesary. I appreciate the effort you had given to the post. Just to make clear I only highlighted the Islam vs atheist/agnostic data due to topic & forum, not to take a cheap shot at atheists.


  • #684
    Jaafa
    Registered Users Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Yeah it was mentioned. Ignored though.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74066447&postcount=271

    Except for this single response full of the usual ignorant anti-Muslim nonsense.

    I see. That's a shame.

    I'd urge people to take another look (or first look) at this study.

    This is a study which has impeccable sources, endorsements from members of the US congress, parts of the US military (including funding) and the likes of Noam Chomsky. It covers all almost every single case of modern Islamic terror attacks, and comes to the conclusion that Islamic terrorism is a direct result of occupation. It's fact's are solid, and damn close to irrefutable I would say.

    Part 1 of 4, is linked above, total of about 1 hour watch, but well worth it.


  • #685
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Jaafa, were you aware the Pape looks set to debate anti-Islam atheist Sam Harris?
    http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/03/anti-muslim-and-faux-liberal-sam-harris-to-debate-dr-robert-pape-soon/
    I really hope it happens. Pape would humiliate him.


  • #686
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You don't think that Martin Luther King Jr, a Christian fundamentalist, practiced the love he preached?
    Oh he did alright, with many women who were not his wife. The damned filthy adulterer!

    Not so christian after all I guess. :pac:


  • #687
    Jaafa
    Registered Users Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Jaafa, were you aware the Pape looks set to debate anti-Islam atheist Sam Harris?
    http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/03/anti-muslim-and-faux-liberal-sam-harris-to-debate-dr-robert-pape-soon/
    I really hope it happens. Pape would humiliate him.

    Interesting, but Sam Harris has already been humiliated in several debates I've watched, he's really not representative of a strong Atheist standpoint. Much better Atheist debaters than him going around.


  • #688
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You don't think that Martin Luther King Jr, a Christian fundamentalist, practiced the love he preached?
    As Magic points out above, he seems to have practised so much lovin' that he must have been a real pro:

    http://www.snopes.com/history/american/mlking.asp


  • #689
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Jaafa wrote: »
    Interesting, but Sam Harris has already been humiliated in several debates I've watched, he's really not representative of a strong Atheist standpoint. Much better Atheist debaters than him going around.

    Serious? I've watched many Harris debates and he can back up ANY of his claims. The guy doesn't even show emotions, but his adversaries do. They get flustered and angry. I've seen William Lane Craig shaking, he can barely hold his pen.

    If you substitute Harris with D'Souza, Craig, Ham or any other shysters in your first sentence, then that's fine.

    If a man finds himself facing Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris in a debate the best course of action would be to get your coat and exit ASAP! That is what an intelligent person would do. The theist is not so lucky. He will stay, and talk about magic unicorns and people living in whales and a floating zoo.


  • #690
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Serious? I've watched many Harris debates and he can back up ANY of his claims.
    OK. Prove it. I listened to a Sam Harris interview last week and he said:


    joseph brand wrote: »
    If a man finds himself facing Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris in a debate the best course of action would be to get your coat and exit ASAP! That is what an intelligent person would do. The theist is not so lucky. He will stay, and talk about magic unicorns and people living in whales and a floating zoo.

    Here is an example of Harris getting schooled by anthropologist Scott Atran. I assure you should he debate Pape on the motivations of Islamic terrorists and all he brings to the table are his Muslim conspiracy theories vs Pape's years of research and scientific evidence he will be humiliated.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VWO6U6248c


  • Advertisement
  • #691
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    robindch wrote: »
    As Magic points out above, he seems to have practised so much lovin' that he must have been a real pro:

    http://www.snopes.com/history/american/mlking.asp
    ???

    Is that a tongue-in-cheek response to Martin Luther King Jr being a fundamentalist Christian who spoke tirelessly of peace, fought tirelessly for peace, justice and equality, who ost his life fighting for peace and who was inspired and strengthened to effecting tremendous societal progression through his faith in his religion?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement