Anyone else sick of hearing how Islam is the religion of "peace"?

a reply to: WilliamtheResolute

Not my problem you fail to see the point.

originally posted by: Brainiac
It isn't a religion of peace, that's label applied by the weak liberal moron. That's like saying poison is good for you. It's a harsh backward outdated barbaric religion.

Here, lemme fix that for you.

It isn't a religion of peace, that's label applied by the weak liberal moron. That's like saying poison is good for you. It's a religion.

a reply to: crazyewok

About as sick as I am of hearing Christianity is a religion based on love

a reply to: Noinden

I would much rather have 1/3 of Christians pushing a lie that defies reality compared with having 1/3 of Muslims openly pushing a lie that defies reality, another 1/3 of Muslims of whom we know are permitted within their religion to lie about supporting a lie that defies reality and embracing the other 1/3 who claim to represent the true faith. (And no, don't assume each category — Extremists, Moderates and Inductees — are equally weighted in percentages. One faith clearly has a much higher percentage of of the first two, which is truly worrying when you think about it.)

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: crazyewok

About as sick as I am of hearing Christianity is a religion based on love

BUT JESUS LOVES YOU!

a reply to: D8Tee

I'm already taken, and he will just have to cope Also my Gods are not the jealous type, but will chase stalkers away.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

How about they all go away? I find Christian extremists to be just as dangerous:

Abortion clinic bombers
IRA/Orange Men
Militia movement
White supremacists.

All are a form of Christian, all have caused death and mayhem, all are scum.

a reply to: Noinden

Any form of violent extremism is problematic. We would benefit greatly if it were all gone, there is no doubting that.

However, anybody that is willing to be honest about the circumstances of the world can see that there is an obvious exception that needs to be addressed before it is too late.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

At no point have I defended any religious extremism. I however will point out that people ignore other large pachyderms in the room. In that Abrahamic faiths perpetuate most of the violence in the world today.

originally posted by: Noinden
At no point have I defended any religious extremism. I however will point out that people ignore other large pachyderms in the room. In that Abrahamic faiths perpetuate most of the violence in the world today.

Agreed. Now here is the problem: if we agree unequivocally that Abrahamic faith extremism (AFE) is the largest problem we face within the context of achieving a fair, just and prosperous planet for everyone (or at least the vast majority) — and I do not support or oppose what I just said but will pretend I do support it for argument's sake — how can we go about eliminating AFE from the world? NOT Abrahamic faiths, but Abrahamic faith extremism? The only realistic way without acting in the absence of strong evidence that the people being targeted are part of the problem identified, would be to eliminate them from this planet or resettle them on another planet that could never have the potential to interfere with our planet. Let us imagine there was a 100% accurate method to achieve this without dropping one innocent drop of blood in the process, you are still speaking about the sanctioned mass murder of hundreds of millions of people whose only shared quality is being part of an extremist monotheist faith willing to murder anybody who opposes their views. Everything else about them is completely disregarded because it is irrelevant to the major problem for everyone.

Keeping that in mind, would you, Noinden, agree to give the go ahead and have these AFE murdered? If you are brave enough to answer the question honestly, please provide at least one sensible reason.

originally posted by: Noinden
At no point have I defended any religious extremism. I however will point out that people ignore other large pachyderms in the room. In that Abrahamic faiths perpetuate most of the violence in the world today.

Agreed. Now here is the problem: if we agree unequivocally that Abrahamic faith extremism (AFE) is the largest problem we face within the context of achieving a fair, just and prosperous planet for everyone (or at least the vast majority) — and I do not support or oppose what I just said but will pretend I do support it for argument's sake — how can we go about eliminating AFE from the world? NOT Abrahamic faiths, but Abrahamic faith extremism? The only realistic way without acting in the absence of strong evidence that the people being targeted are part of the problem identified, would be to eliminate them from this planet or resettle them on another planet that could never have the potential to interfere with our planet.

Let us imagine there was a 100% accurate method to achieve this without dropping one innocent drop of blood in the process, you are still speaking about the sanctioned mass murder of hundreds of millions of people whose only shared quality is being part of an extremist monotheist faith willing to murder anybody who opposes their views. Everything else about them is completely disregarded because it is irrelevant to the major problem for everyone.

Keeping that in mind, would you, Noinden, agree to give the go ahead and have these AFE resettled on another planet or murdered out of existence? If you are brave enough to answer the question honestly, please provide at least one sensible reason.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

The problem with such scenarios is that unless I have mistaken what you are proposing the answer is clearly and obviously yes. The facets of reality that might stay someone's hand - uncertainty of guilt for one - are totally absent. If the conditions are as follows:

[[[ A) Targeting only those of Abrahamic faiths who themselves possess extremist views. (Not unilaterally the entirety of the religion.)
B) The individuals have in question have a willingness and intent to act on, propagate, or condone those extremist views. (Those who may possess but will not act out, propagate, or harbor those of similar views shall be exempted.)
C) The success rate is 100%. There is no inaccuracy or concern of error ]]]

then I would exterminate them all with only a small instant of hesitation, feeling remorse for those who truly believed they were promoting the cause of a better world. The ones who took pleasure in other's suffering I would dance on their graves as they died.
Why?
Here is why.
I am in the position of an omniscient God, I cannot avoid choosing. There is no neutrality, no abstinence. A lack of choice is still a choice, its repercussions of which I am fully aware. Leave these millions alive, and they in turn will kill millions. Condemn them to death, and millions still would die.
I would rather gamble on the option that leads to a better outcome.

As an addendum, it is similar to why Batman not exterminating the Joker seems ridiculous (and to an extent this also holds true in-universe.) Such is the benefit of the omniscient viewer. Rather than being killed the Joker is imprisoned, and we (along with Batman, I would wager) know that

A) He will inevitably escape imprisonment.
B) He will inevitably kill again.
C) He is completely aware of the consequence of his actions.
D) He has no extenuating circumstances.

Hence, by choosing not to kill, Batman is killing hundreds. He is aware of the consequences of his actions, there is no path of innocence. Batman may not be aware of condition [D], and that may be a small point in his favor, but he is a killer all the same. Even if he did not even know who died, even if he did not witness it, even if it never entered his consciousness at all, he is a killer as surely as if he pulled the trigger himself. Batman follows the creed of selfish morality. I would not.

To continue with the comic references, "With great power comes great responsibility," and with great responsibility there is no outcome free of death.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Very interesting and thought-provoking answer, thank you for your honestly and providing reasoning to support what you said. I do largely support what you are saying, but do have to take issue with one or two points you made (I will keep it to one so that I do not make this post horrendously longer than it needs to be):

When you mentioned you were being put into a position of a sort of "omniscient God" and therefore couldn't afford choosing whether you acted or not, while your intentions were to give us as realistic analogy as you could at the time, what you said did not meet that criteria. The problem is whether the God you are going to be playing (which itself by definition itself would include omnipotence and omniscience at the very least) is comparable to in terms of omnipotence as well, because if this variable is not established then it is not a comparable analogy. It seems like the situation I described would lean towards omnipotence because you would be able to take an absolute action that only affects those intended without directly harming anyone else with a 100% guaranteed success rate. That seems to fit the definition of omnipotence well but if it were true omnipotence I would be able to achieve this without taking any action at all (making everything inside the world automatically forget how to hate and only know how to love). Therefore, you and I must establish whether the God you mentioned playing is omnipotent too. It cannot be avoided if we want to be honest.

Another critical factor is determining whether this God was able to act as separate from his creation or if he needed to go inside and be bound by the same rules and laws once he did this and couldn't escape (or at least a part of God couldn't escape). This has never been clearly established as a consistent rule in any religious tradition I have researched and therefore need you to be more specific about the God you would be playing.

It's a complicated topic and I don't want to put you off. I do believe you CAN answer these questions if you give yourself time and consider them deeply before answering and I look forward to your answer.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

There is no way to eliminate extremism. Not just the Abrahamic ones. Quite simply the world is not united, and as such, reasonable secular nations (such as the one I live in) are cancelled by unreasonable religious ones.

Thus before I answer your question, let me make it clear, I am not an atheist, I'm a Neopagan, of the Reconstructionist Druid and Celtic Recon paths. Least anyone think I am not religious.


I for one think ALL religious extremists (ALL) should be treated as terrorists, and as such dealt with in a punitive manner. If they can not be re-educated, they would need to be segregated from the rest of humanity. BUT, and here is where many may not agree. This needs to not just concentrate on the "largest group" but concentrate on all of them. Hence your abortion clinic bombers, extremist Buddhist monks, Volkish Heathen Racists, all of them need be targeted.

This will never occur, and thus the next most reasonable course, is to remind them, that they are being seen as the hypocritical, muppets that they are.

Your little thought experiment, is ultimately pointless. As are people who point at Islam and say "yours is not the path of peace". Just as Christianity is not the path of Love, based on the extreme.

a reply to: crazyewok


Thousands of words to define a simple concept and try and justify a moral talking point. I grow weary, why have I read all this psychobabble surrounding what God is and who owns the high moral ground in his name...belief is belief?

God is and it would be as absurd to deny the existence of god, because we cannot see him, as it would be to deny the existence of the air or wind, because we cannot see it either....it is futile to argue whose concept of God is correct.

originally posted by: Noinden
Your little thought experiment, is ultimately pointless. As are people who point at Islam and say "yours is not the path of peace". Just as Christianity is not the path of Love, based on the extreme.

It would seem pointless because you didn't quite get the point. Here, I'll try again: one religion whose core values I can openly criticise to great lengths and as result the probability of ending up dead would be astronomically small; the other religion whose core values I cannot openly criticise and if I do manage to criticise them to a great extent means that as a result the probability of me staying alive would be astronomically small. In a predominantly non-Muslim populated Western country, that is a scary thought.

Wake. The. Hell. Up.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

In terms of analogy, to some extent it was an inaccurate one but I believe it is applicable to your hypothetical. I have argued before that the existence of an omniscient being at any point in time is irreconcilable with 'free will' as people typically think of it because the omniscient individual cannot avoid even if they so wished dictating the story of everything because even the absence of choice is still a choice, and they know exactly how it ends. I liken it to having a button you may press that kills a man, another that kills his wife. If you do not press either, neither die, but it is still a decision. You cannot avoid holding their lives in your hands. There is no abstinence, no neutral path, only choices which you know the outcomes of. It is such a situation for an omniscient being, with infinitely complex choices and infinitely complex results.

However, note that I did not say I was an omniscient God in this scenario, merely taking the position of one relative to this decision. It was less an explanation as to how this specific situation might arise (obviously, if you were omnipotent the world is automatically exactly how you desire so it's not even worth talking about), and more an explanation as to my justification behind why I would so unerringly choose to exterminate millions. The rationality behind it is that the deaths of millions are on my hands not from when I make my choice, but when the choice is offered. Exterminate the extremists, or by allowing them to live by proxy let the extremists exterminate in my stead.

a reply to: grainofsand
No, Christianity is not the religion of peace, it's the religion of love as long as you do not wear anything synthetic, eat an animal with hooves, cheat on your spouse or have the unfortunate luck to be the Son of a man who will murder you in the name of his God and to please him. Stoning in the streets, murder, etc. The Old Testament and with it, the hardline Christians are a threat to any rational, logical, critical thinker.