Muslim Ban Over Handshake. Whaddayareckon Liberals?

[Tyrannical]

What kind of busted arse logic is that?! You're getting stranger and stranger lately. Is this the real you coming out, or are you just looking for attention?

Was that comment to me?

Yes.

I was just quoting Cicero who said misogyny is caused by gynophobia. And there seems to be a lot of actual gynophobia among Afghan Muslims. So my logic is, ummm, logical

I was more referring to the logic as it applied to gay people. I'm pretty sure you'll find that gay people aren't afraid of women. The same as heteros aren't afraid of members of their own sex.

I'm sure not all gay men are misogynistic, but the ones that are, it's probably because of their gynophobia. According to Cicero

[Exi5tentialist]

So stick that in your islamophobic pipe and smoke it.

Nice notpology.

You're welcome. Now are you prepared to tell me why you think I'm an authoritarian, or are you going to drop that accusation as well?

[pErvinalia]

I've already told you. Follow the quotes back. You are either willfully disingenuous or trolling or god knows what. Either way, I'm not interested in "debating" with you any more.

[Exi5tentialist]

I've already told you. Follow the quotes back. You are either willfully disingenuous or trolling or god knows what. Either way, I'm not interested in "debating" with you any more.

If you mean this:-

People making reasonable critiques of religion aren't racists, just the same as people making reasonable critiques of the Adam Johnson sentence aren't paedophiles. The fact that you can't handle reasonable free critique suggests you have authoritarian tendencies.

It's too vague to even know what you're saying. How do you define a "reasonable free critique"? It sounds like you're saying you're think I'm an authoritarian because you want to be free to "criticise islam" without ever being challenged and you want to be free to argue for Adam Johnson to be let off with a slap on the wrist without anyone arguing against you. My reaction to those things is just somebody disagreeing with you. It's not authoritarianism. Unless you felt that by persuasion I had caused you to change your approach, and you resented not being free to pursue your former bigotry. Maybe that is what you mean by authoritarian.

I don't know. You have haven't explained.

[Hermit]

To me, humans are changing all the time and so are their ideologies.

Yes, ideologies are changing all the time, but that does not mean there are not good bits as well as bad bits in the various holy books they refer to. Muslims, Christians and adherents of other religions pick and choose the bits that suit them at the time, and they ignore what does not. The books make it not only easy, but actually necessary because they are riddled with contradictions. You cannot conclude from that that "The holy books of Islam, like those of Christianity and Judaism, are irrelevant." nor that "They became irrelevant a fairly short time after their authors died." Not as long as they remain the ultimate fallback for believers, be they Muslim, Christian or Jew. All you can say is that over time particular bits of those books are focused on and others ignored. On the whole they remain of utmost importance as guides to religious persons, and to an extent their influence percolates through to those who are only nominally a member of one religion or another as well.

[Exi5tentialist]

To me, humans are changing all the time and so are their ideologies.

Yes, ideologies are changing all the time, but that does not mean there are not good bits as well as bad bits in the various holy books they refer to. Muslims, Christians and adherents of other religions pick and choose the bits that suit them at the time, and they ignore what does not. The books make it not only easy, but actually necessary because they are riddled with contradictions. You cannot conclude from that that "The holy books of Islam, like those of Christianity and Judaism, are irrelevant." nor that "They became irrelevant a fairly short time after their authors died." Not as long as they remain the ultimate fallback for believers, be they Muslim, Christian or Jew. All you can say is that over time particular bits of those books are focused on and others ignored. On the whole they remain of utmost importance as guides to religious persons, and to an extent their influence percolates through to those who are only nominally a member of one religion or another as well.

Well I accept that in common with lots of religious people you buy the shit that messages can be transmitted through the ages by dead people. It's a weird bit of woo and my atheism doesn't allow me to believe it, but if you do, I can't stop you.

[JimC]

The Holy Books certainly mattered to those dudes Jihidi John chopped. They matter to LBGT folks in North Carolina. Saying they "don't matter" because the authors are dead is like saying Das Capital has no meaning to Cubans or Venezuelans or Chinese. Of course they matter. Not in and of themselves, but to their followers, and their followers can matter one fuck of a lot if you happen to get on the wrong side of them. We could got all philosobabble on the meaning of meaning, but I already had my morning wank.

Does 'LBGT' offend anyone else's OCD? It should be BGLT.

There are some in the forum, who argue that all muslims are bound to follow all the nastier bits of the Koran, and the moderates are just pretending, to lull us into a false sense of security. This, of course, is absolute bollocks. The people on this forum that post in this area mostly accept that the majority of muslims cherry pick the bits they want (like most christians) and simply want to get on with life, religious observances being perfunctory and on the surface. Fine.

But it is a clear and evident fact that a minority of muslims are deeply affected by the precepts of their holy writings, and take literally the commandments on how to treat infidels and apostates. The have an effect well beyond their proportion in the muslim world. Some Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia enshrine in law most of the oppressive shit that comes from these writings, so they are not, as Exi claims, dead, buried and irrelevant. The writings control the minds of some, and deserve robust criticism. One can be highly critical of Islam as a religion without joining the racist whites who conflate it with their own nasty prejudices.

Another thing that Exi claims is that anti-Islamic sentiment is there to somehow deflect criticism of the way the west has treated third world countries, both in the past and the present. This, of course is simplified nonsense. It is perfectly possible to be critical of both, and accept that groups such as ISIS and Al Qaida and their ilk arose through a combination of many social, political, religious and economic factors. However, to ignore the vital role that the fundamentalist interpretations of Islam have in motivating such groups, and their recruitment of young muslims would be utterly absurd.

[pErvinalia]

To me, humans are changing all the time and so are their ideologies.

Yes, ideologies are changing all the time, but that does not mean there are not good bits as well as bad bits in the various holy books they refer to. Muslims, Christians and adherents of other religions pick and choose the bits that suit them at the time, and they ignore what does not. The books make it not only easy, but actually necessary because they are riddled with contradictions. You cannot conclude from that that "The holy books of Islam, like those of Christianity and Judaism, are irrelevant." nor that "They became irrelevant a fairly short time after their authors died." Not as long as they remain the ultimate fallback for believers, be they Muslim, Christian or Jew. All you can say is that over time particular bits of those books are focused on and others ignored. On the whole they remain of utmost importance as guides to religious persons, and to an extent their influence percolates through to those who are only nominally a member of one religion or another as well.

Well I accept that in common with lots of religious people you buy the shit that messages can be transmitted through the ages by dead people.

That's what writing is! What a farcical position you've got yourself into again. Stop digging, ffs.

[laklak]

Well I accept that in common with lots of religious people you buy the shit that messages can be transmitted through the ages by dead people. It's a weird bit of woo and my atheism doesn't allow me to believe it, but if you do, I can't stop you.

Doesn't "allow you to believe"? WTF? There's no belief required, just open your fucking eyes, it's a stone cold fact. Yes, the words and attitudes of long dead bronze age piss stained goat herding assholes absolutely HAS been transmitted down the ages. This stupid shit matters to these people. To them, it's fucking TRUTH. They base their whole goddamn lives on it, and they'll happily shove it down your throat, at the end of a gun barrel or edge of a knife if necessary, and if you give them enough political power they'll tie you to a stake in the middle of the square and burn your ass alive while singing the praises of Jebus or Allah Walla Bing-Bang. There were fucking Buddhists releasing nerve gas in a subway, FFS. Jesus Christ, that's just as mind-numbingly stupid as a Babble Basher saying "my religion won't allow me to believe in evilooshun". You'd eviscerate someone who said that, but you're doing exactly, precisely, the same thing. No, actually it's worse. If you're going to lay claim to a rational worldview and then talk about your "belief" then you're worse off then they are, because you should know better.

[Hermit]

To me, humans are changing all the time and so are their ideologies.

Yes, ideologies are changing all the time, but that does not mean there are not good bits as well as bad bits in the various holy books they refer to. Muslims, Christians and adherents of other religions pick and choose the bits that suit them at the time, and they ignore what does not. The books make it not only easy, but actually necessary because they are riddled with contradictions. You cannot conclude from that that "The holy books of Islam, like those of Christianity and Judaism, are irrelevant." nor that "They became irrelevant a fairly short time after their authors died." Not as long as they remain the ultimate fallback for believers, be they Muslim, Christian or Jew. All you can say is that over time particular bits of those books are focused on and others ignored. On the whole they remain of utmost importance as guides to religious persons, and to an extent their influence percolates through to those who are only nominally a member of one religion or another as well.

Well I accept that in common with lots of religious people you buy the shit that messages can be transmitted through the ages by dead people.

That's the beauty of the written word. Messages are transmitted through the ages by dead people. Of course it's not as simple as that. Texts will also be selectively used, ignored, interpreted, reinterpreted, faked and destroyed. This is why we have so many varieties within each of the many main religions. The flux and variety does not negate the fact that for better or worse writings have influence well past the deaths of their authors. The fact alone that people keep arguing about what, say, the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, the Vedas, the Sutras and so on "really" mean gives them that.

my atheism doesn't allow me to believe it

Mine does.

[Exi5tentialist]

That's the beauty of the written word. Messages are transmitted through the ages by dead people. Of course it's not as simple as that. Texts will also be selectively used, ignored, interpreted, reinterpreted, faked and destroyed. This is why we have so many varieties within each of the many main religions. The flux and variety does not negate the fact that for better or worse writings have influence well past the deaths of their authors. The fact alone that people keep arguing about what, say, the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, the Vedas, the Sutras and so on "really" mean gives them that.

Rubbish.

[Hermit]

To me, humans are changing all the time and so are their ideologies.

Yes, ideologies are changing all the time, but that does not mean there are not good bits as well as bad bits in the various holy books they refer to. Muslims, Christians and adherents of other religions pick and choose the bits that suit them at the time, and they ignore what does not. The books make it not only easy, but actually necessary because they are riddled with contradictions. You cannot conclude from that that "The holy books of Islam, like those of Christianity and Judaism, are irrelevant." nor that "They became irrelevant a fairly short time after their authors died." Not as long as they remain the ultimate fallback for believers, be they Muslim, Christian or Jew. All you can say is that over time particular bits of those books are focused on and others ignored. On the whole they remain of utmost importance as guides to religious persons, and to an extent their influence percolates through to those who are only nominally a member of one religion or another as well.

Well I accept that in common with lots of religious people you buy the shit that messages can be transmitted through the ages by dead people.

That's the beauty of the written word. Messages are transmitted through the ages by dead people. Of course it's not as simple as that. Texts will also be selectively used, ignored, interpreted, reinterpreted, faked and destroyed. This is why we have so many varieties within each of the many main religions. The flux and variety does not negate the fact that for better or worse writings have influence well past the deaths of their authors. The fact alone that people keep arguing about what, say, the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, the Vedas, the Sutras and so on "really" mean gives them that.

Rubbish.

In your opinion.

[JimC]

To me, humans are changing all the time and so are their ideologies.

Yes, ideologies are changing all the time, but that does not mean there are not good bits as well as bad bits in the various holy books they refer to. Muslims, Christians and adherents of other religions pick and choose the bits that suit them at the time, and they ignore what does not. The books make it not only easy, but actually necessary because they are riddled with contradictions. You cannot conclude from that that "The holy books of Islam, like those of Christianity and Judaism, are irrelevant." nor that "They became irrelevant a fairly short time after their authors died." Not as long as they remain the ultimate fallback for believers, be they Muslim, Christian or Jew. All you can say is that over time particular bits of those books are focused on and others ignored. On the whole they remain of utmost importance as guides to religious persons, and to an extent their influence percolates through to those who are only nominally a member of one religion or another as well.

Well I accept that in common with lots of religious people you buy the shit that messages can be transmitted through the ages by dead people.

That's the beauty of the written word. Messages are transmitted through the ages by dead people. Of course it's not as simple as that. Texts will also be selectively used, ignored, interpreted, reinterpreted, faked and destroyed. This is why we have so many varieties within each of the many main religions. The flux and variety does not negate the fact that for better or worse writings have influence well past the deaths of their authors. The fact alone that people keep arguing about what, say, the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, the Vedas, the Sutras and so on "really" mean gives them that.

Rubbish.

WTF?

You simply deny that writings from the past can have any effect on current human culture and behaviour? You reply to Hermit's clear description of obvious historical reality with "Rubbish"...

Your posts demonstrate very little rationality or knowledge of history.

[pErvinalia]

That's the beauty of the written word. Messages are transmitted through the ages by dead people. Of course it's not as simple as that. Texts will also be selectively used, ignored, interpreted, reinterpreted, faked and destroyed. This is why we have so many varieties within each of the many main religions. The flux and variety does not negate the fact that for better or worse writings have influence well past the deaths of their authors. The fact alone that people keep arguing about what, say, the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, the Vedas, the Sutras and so on "really" mean gives them that.

Rubbish.

This is getting beyond a joke. The very point of the written word is to convey ideas. For the love of Jesus, stop digging.

[pErvinalia]

Yes, ideologies are changing all the time, but that does not mean there are not good bits as well as bad bits in the various holy books they refer to. Muslims, Christians and adherents of other religions pick and choose the bits that suit them at the time, and they ignore what does not. The books make it not only easy, but actually necessary because they are riddled with contradictions. You cannot conclude from that that "The holy books of Islam, like those of Christianity and Judaism, are irrelevant." nor that "They became irrelevant a fairly short time after their authors died." Not as long as they remain the ultimate fallback for believers, be they Muslim, Christian or Jew. All you can say is that over time particular bits of those books are focused on and others ignored. On the whole they remain of utmost importance as guides to religious persons, and to an extent their influence percolates through to those who are only nominally a member of one religion or another as well.

Well I accept that in common with lots of religious people you buy the shit that messages can be transmitted through the ages by dead people.

That's the beauty of the written word. Messages are transmitted through the ages by dead people. Of course it's not as simple as that. Texts will also be selectively used, ignored, interpreted, reinterpreted, faked and destroyed. This is why we have so many varieties within each of the many main religions. The flux and variety does not negate the fact that for better or worse writings have influence well past the deaths of their authors. The fact alone that people keep arguing about what, say, the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, the Vedas, the Sutras and so on "really" mean gives them that.

Rubbish.

WTF?

You simply deny that writings from the past can have any effect on current human culture and behaviour? You reply to Hermit's clear description of obvious historical reality with "Rubbish"...

Your posts demonstrate very little rationality or knowledge of history.

Like most of Exi's nonsense ideas, they can be easily debunked by the very posts that expound those ideas. If the written word couldn't convey ideas, like he claims, then his reply to Hermit (or anyone) wouldn't make the least bit of sense.

Man, it's educational how far into a hole humans can dig themselves in the quest to avoid admitting they were wrong.