156 replies to this topic

[Lazarus Long]

The problem you are all having is that you will never defeat an idea militarily and in the case of Islam you run the risk of actually promoting it the more you make martyrs of its members.

This means that the alternative to defeating the idea is large scale genocide and frankly that is worse in the long run and not only morally corrupt but rational validation of the opposition taking the most extreme behavior in response. You validate their claim that the *real* intent is to exterminate them.

So as uncomfortable and frustrating as it is the best course of action is to confront ideology with ideology and that involves discourse, debate, trade, *social engagement* social experimentation and all those frustrating slow *evolutionary* models that many feel we do not have time for.

This is another reason I think humanity desperately needs the socio-psychology of longevity, because so few people have any real *sense* of history and the excruciatingly geologic character of the process, not to mention the patience to influence it constructively instead of catastrophically.

As we have accelerated technological progress we have become more and more impatient with the pace of social evolution and this is in part because of a false analogy to the pace of progress for technology.

As global populations increase in size and complexity the task of integrating them into a cohesive whole is becoming more complex logarithmically.

In great measure this is what leads to the desire for miraculous solutions, whether religious or in the form of a scientific singularity.

[Brainbox]

The problem you are all having is that you will never defeat an idea militarily and in the case of Islam you run the risk of actually promoting it the more you make martyrs of its members.

This means that the alternative to defeating the idea is large scale genocide and frankly that is worse in the long run and not only morally corrupt but rational validation of the opposition taking the most extreme behavior in response. You validate their claim that the *real* intent is to exterminate them.

So as uncomfortable and frustrating as it is the best course of action is to confront ideology with ideology and that involves discourse, debate, trade, *social engagement* social experimentation and all those frustrating slow *evolutionary* models that many feel we do not have time for.

This is another reason I think humanity desperately needs the socio-psychology of longevity, because so few people have any real *sense* of history and the excruciatingly geologic character of the process, not to mention the patience to influence it constructively instead of catastrophically.

As we have accelerated technological progress we have become more and more impatient with the pace of social evolution and this is in part because of a false analogy to the pace of progress for technology.

As global populations increase in size and complexity the task of integrating them into a cohesive whole is becoming more complex logarithmically.

In great measure this is what leads to the desire for miraculous solutions, whether religious or in the form of a scientific singularity.

Exactly!
We try to compensate for our genetic and developmental flaws by trying to adopt complex concepts, instead of having the open mindedness to look at our own individual errors, acknowledge them and deal with them. The irony is that some of these concepts did exactly have this goal, but were unable to reach each individual in a way that they are / were able to aquire the required level of individual open mindedness. In a practical way that is. What some of these complex movements did acomplish is a collective feeling of numbness, which is something entirely different, although at macro-level seems to have a (short term) desirable effect.

Edited by brainbox, 30 March 2008 - 01:59 PM.

[inawe]

This thread was started recently by gas*, who was suspended for being
foul mouthed and given 60 to wash his mouth. In spite of the ominous
beginning it has evolved into something that can have potential. I say
"can" because it will require from the participants common sense and,
yes, some honesty and guts. Let's see what's being discussed.

The short movie by Geert Wilders. Brainbox who is more familiar with this,
referred to "some kind of concept that thrives on the feeling of the
need to defend the backyard". Wilders is a right wing politician who
would like to keep the country for himself. We have some of those in
the US and I don't have any sympathy for them.

Wilders made Fitna which contains a few real quotations from the
Koran. It could be watched at LiveLeak for a day. Then it was taken
off when they received serious threats.
So there is a lot of material to discuss, if we are wiling to. First this guy gas* who most of us agree
should be getting his kicks somewhere else. Besides not having
redeeming anything, his posts are tasteless, virulent and inciting
violence.

Then there is Islam and the Koran. The Koran contains many suras which
are more tasteless, virulent and inciting much worse violence than gas*
posts. But there is a huge difference. Gas* post were read by a few
privileged at Imminst. The Koran virulence is indoctrinating millions
of children.
As it's written: "Blessed are those who don't see
anything wrong with it, for theirs will be the kingdom of heaven".
Probably much sooner than they would like.

[nefastor]

We try to compensate for our genetic and developmental flaws by trying to adopt complex concepts, instead of having the open mindedness to look at our own individual errors, acknowledge them and deal with them. The irony is that some of these concepts did exactly have this goal, but were unable to reach each individual in a way that they are / were able to aquire the required level of individual open mindedness. In a practical way that is. What some of these complex movements did acomplish is a collective feeling of numbness, which is something entirely different, although at macro-level seems to have a (short term) desirable effect.

I'm not sure at all what you're trying to say...

... and in yet another strike of synchronicity (the only paranormal thing I believe in, from experience) : I was just getting up to date with my favorite web-comic when I came across this cartoon, which is very appropriate for this thread.

To give you some context : the characters belong to a mercenary organization, and one of their most evil past employers has just been assassinated. This is cause for celebration. After the festivities end :



It's one of my pet peeves : a lot of smart stuff gets posted on forums, but exactly how much of it can you actually use ? While talking is important, acting is even more important. And it's clear religious organisations (including sects) are into action just as they are into talking. We atheists, on the other hand, are mostly into talking, and most of that talking is highly-abstract stuff.

It may please our egos to show each other how smart we are, but all the smarts we display here wouldn't stop an illiterate religious zealot from killing us all. Perhaps a similar realization is what prompted the creation and release of the Fitna movie.

Nefastor

(P.S. : if you enjoy military sci-fi novels such as the Vorkosigan and Honor Harrington sagas, you'll definitely enjoy this web-comic : Schlock Mercenary. It's been going on daily for 7 years uninterrupted)

[Lazarus Long]

It may please our egos to show each other how smart we are, but all the smarts we display here wouldn't stop an illiterate religious zealot from killing us all. Perhaps a similar realization is what prompted the creation and release of the Fitna movie.

Not perhaps but precisely why Nefastor.

The author was writing in direct response to a fatwa against newspapers for printing a cartoon against Islam and the assassination of playwright and Dutch director Theo van Gogh

[mike250]

Islam must be tamed, just as christianity have lost and continues to lose its importance in the west. (...)
To secularise the Muslims seem very difficult though. Not least since the slightest attempt at challenging their beliefs is viewed as racist and/or "islamophobic" by the media, politicians, and the politically correct. Ignoring them won't do though, I fear.

Okay, first, it took centuries for Christianity to be "tamed", and this was in very different times. In the age of WMD's we don't have that kind of time.

Also, part of Christianity's "taming" process involved a phased where it pretty much controlled all of Europe, Illuminati-style, and had hundreds of thousand Swiss mercenaries going into every country "helping" kings fight their wars in exchange of increases in Vatican influence.

Once was enough, no one in Europe wants a second era like that one.

Second, most people fail to realize (though I've written it again in this thread) that Islam doesn't consider itself a religion but an actual political and legal system. Therefore you can't "secularize" them, because they already see themselves as a secular power. This isn't even unique to Islam : the Vatican of old didn't maintain its gigantic mercenary army for nothing. And they are, even today, a sovereign state : what do think they laws are if not the Ten Commandments ?

I wish more (or even all) atheists joined me in actually studying religions. Sun Tzu wrote it 2500 years ago : know your enemy. The biggest mistake an atheist can make is to believe his immunity to faith is a sword that can break through others' faith.

As for the way Muslims never fail to call a racist anyone who challenges their faith... it's just one more example of the kind of dishonest, ruthless strategies that have been killing US troops in Iraq for the past five years. You cannot expect fairness from a Muslim : his entire faith is about converting you and your family, or hurting you if he can't. Until you die, if that's what it takes.

And ignoring the media WILL do. I've seen my fair share of TV news when I was in the US. Let me tell you, your so-called "journalists" are stupider than poultry. These people get their panties in a bunch over Obama's lapel pin and wonder if his middle name "Hussein" makes him a muslim : and you would tell me anything they can ever say actually matters ? By comparison, french TV news are all about the issues. When there's a presidential election, we don't even SEE the potential first ladies in the news, and no one gives a damn about what they are wearing and which God they believe in.

Bill Maher says it best :

Ignore what idiots say. Ignore it all. Waste of time.

Nefastor, sorry to hear about your family's experience with genocide. Would it help to understand the 60 day suspension of gashinshotan's account if you knew that he had promoted genocide on more than one occasion, and against more than one group? The Powers That Be of ImmInst have a job, which is to support the Institute's mission. When a poster persistently interferes with that mission, and has been repeatedly warned, suspension from this organization is entirely reasonable.

I can understand how most people would want to ban someone promoting genocide, I really do. But I have to be honest with myself, and with you : suppose some kind of Hitler-esque dictator suddenly decided to wipe out all Muslims ? Well no one in my family, and dare I say my people (and we are millions), no one will shed a single tear. As for a single Armenian trying to stop that genocide ? There's a higher probability Jesus will come again.

My grandma was lucky in that she only died last month, at age 94 (and 3 years after a very crippling brain stroke) but in 1915 she lost all trace of her family. She's had to live her entire life without ever knowing if anyone in her family survived, and as such she was technically an orphan. And when I say she died at 94... no one is actually sure because the Muslim burned all our churches and in the process destroyed all birth records. Those of my people who managed to escape the genocide, if they were children, never knew their exact age and had their birthday estimated in the country who granted them asylum.

My grandpa didn't like that : like many, he was estimated older than he thought he was, and as a result was forced into retirement years before he should have. Retrospectively, it was a good thing : sequels from captivity caused him to die in his 70's. I barely got to know him. I wouldn't have, if he'd kept working.

To this day, Turkey still claims ARMENIA tried to invade them and they had to defend themselves. Just typing this makes me want to find the nearest Muslim and punch him in the face a few times.

You can think what you want : when that kind of stuff happens to you, there is no way you can forgive and still call yourself "human". Those who think it's possible simply never had such terrible things happen to them, or their brains have been fried by too much religion and don't know what will happen when they DO turn the other cheek.

Me, as an atheist, all I see is this senseless crap : another people attacked mine because they both believe in different fairy tales.

Now that I have said this, let me add I understand people in my position are a minority here. So really if you want to blame a guy because he advocates pogroms, based on what you know and believe, I think it's fine.

I also understand that gashinshotan may be a bigot who doesn't have nearly the same reasons I have for hating Islam and religions at large. Some people like to post to offend and attract attention, but when all is said and done, I think Islam deserves attention, and not in a "warm and fuzzy" kind of way.

So... to conclude this rather length post : guys, eat your veggies and learn about the Bible and Quran. You need it if you're going to make it to age 10,000

Nefastor

sounds like collective guilt to me. according to you we should put them all in the same basket, and kill them and their families because of what the turks did. and no you're not the only one who has suffered from terrible things and won't be the last I'm sure. making them victims of other victims isn't a smart thing to do

Edited by mike250, 30 March 2008 - 06:32 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Inawe I apologize for not raising a gun in defense of the likes of Gas but I frankly am not the moral equal to the ACLU.

I am very respectful of Jewish attorney's that can successfully defend the Neo Nazi Party's right to march. They are at least consistent in their diligent defense of Free Speech no matter how it may cost them a divorce at home.

I do however think you are right that a violation of free speech is at issue here. So let's take a closer look at it.

The issue revolves around the rules of discourse in a debate and the right of a moderator to establish limits. This site does impose such rules and it is within its right to do so. So long as the rules are not violated nobody is blocked from asserting their beliefs.

One such rule is the use of personal attacks.

Gas is quite guilty of those in various examples that have gotten him in trouble before but it so happens that this is not so specifically relevant in this case.

Another such rule is the advocation of criminal behavior.

Advocating genocide or murder is such an act.

The use of violence in the defense of peace is not easy but the overt use of violence in defense of overcoming the social psychology of fear or confronting perceived threat with preemptive action is more complex, and simply resorting to a blanket choice of rationalization genocide, racism and promoting hatred is not a solution.

It is in fact a part of the problem and at best is almost a biblical example of an eye for eye because it is not even a logical example of ends justifying the means.

Gas earned his suspension by slipping back and forth from advocating a crime and then personally attacking those that didn't agree.

The problem that I think we in leadership have is that in correcting the issue we are often removing the offense and so others like you that come in later do not have the advantage of reviewing the evidence first hand. We are not the ACLU here.

However why should we also reward the perpetrator by leaving his comments intact and in place?

I should add that a careful review will show that some moderators have taken great pains to remove only the offending remarks and leave the substantive aspects in place. Ironically this has added legitimacy to Gas rather than removing it.

[Brainbox]

The major point is that we lack a globally accepted reference of good behaviour in combination with our genetic disposition that was selected by our tribal background. The latter to assure that the probability of a successful occurrence of the first is almost zero.

Religion did have it's uses 1000 years ago to aid to developing and maintaining the structure of our civilised society. It did use force and manipulative methods to accomplish that. It has partly been replaced by political dogma's in the late 19th and 20th century. After the decline of one major political dogma in the 1980's, the door has been opened to a next step in the development of humanity.

The only thing I see is utter confusion that results in a desire to keep old concepts alive that need to be abandoned. Maybe it's a bit arrogant to express it this way, but half of the human population did not yet go through the development phases the other half did. Does humanity therefore need to revert to the lowest level of currently existing level of development in order to survive?

Edited by brainbox, 30 March 2008 - 06:45 PM.

[mike250]

The major point is that we lack a globally accepted reference of good behaviour in combination with our genetic disposition that was created by our tribal background. The latter to assure that the probability of a successful occurrence of the first is almost zero.

Religion did have it's uses 1000 years ago to aid to developing and maintaining the structure of our civilised society. It did use force and manipulative methods to accomplish that. It has partly been replaced by political dogma's in the late 19th and 20th century. After the decline of one major political dogma in the 1980's, the door has been opened to a next step in the development of humanity.

The only thing I see is utter confusion that results in a desire to keep old concepts alive that need to be abandoned. Maybe it's a bit arrogant to express it this way, but half of the human population did not yet go through the development phases the other half did. Does humanity therefore need to revert to the lowest level of currently existing level of development in order to survive?

People like to hold onto old concepts because they get comfort from it, and like to remind us that somehow we are responsible for what happened 20 or 30 or 50 years ago and we are and always guilty of it. I'm sorry but this is a rusty mentality that has to change.

[A941]

I have watched the movie, and i have no problems with it, finaly it is the truth about radical Islam, and we should defend our freedom against these insane maniacs or they will take over the world and turn it in a nightmare.
Everybody who thinks the quran is more than a bad work of fiction should be sent back to Idiotistan or another of these primitive, barbaric countrys.
Thats my opinion!

[Brainbox]

I have watched the movie, and i have no problems with it, finaly it is the truth about radical Islam, and we should defend our freedom against these insane maniacs or they will take over the world and turn it in a nightmare.
Everybody who thinks the quran is more than a bad work of fiction should be sent back to Idiotistan or another of these primitive, barbaric countrys.
Thats my opinion!

The point I'm trying to make is that we should be clever enough to come up with something better than that.

[nefastor]

according to you we should put them all in the same basket, and kill them too because of what the turks did. and no you're not the only one who has suffered from terrible things. but making them victims of other victims isn't a smart thing to do.

With all due respect, you're not contributing anything to this discussion. What you're saying has been said so many times it's worse than cliché. Unless you have an alternative to offer, please don't clutter the thread with a post that's nothing more than a quote of one of my (gigantic) posts. Thank you.

It may please our egos to show each other how smart we are, but all the smarts we display here wouldn't stop an illiterate religious zealot from killing us all. Perhaps a similar realization is what prompted the creation and release of the Fitna movie.

Not perhaps but precisely why Nefastor.

I know, I just wanted someone else to say it

I've read the article you linked to, and one paragraph in particular made me go "WELL DUH !" :

"He (the film's author) could have also chosen quotes from the Koran that say it is a sin to kill another man, it's equal to killing all humanity," State Secretary of Social Affairs Ahmed Aboutaleb told Dutch broadcasters. "But that part didn't work in his favor and that's why he chose the worst parts. If you selectively choose parts, you can find that in any religious book."

Indeed, and that's where I would say "I rest my case" if I were a lawyer arguing against religion. Here you have a religious person telling you, with no ambiguity whatsoever, that you can't have a rational argument with believers because their belief systems allow them to do anything they want AND their opposite, while rationality inherently means you can't.

Case in point : honor killings (we have those in France too, right now, and in the UK also)

Nefastor

[nefastor]

I should add that a careful review will show that some moderators have taken great pains to remove only the offending remarks and leaving the substantive aspects in place. Ironically this has added legitimacy to Gas rather than removing it.

Aaaaand if someone had told me that sooner I wouldn't have pondered for a whole day whether or not I should post that I found nothing really wrong when reviewing Gas' other posts. Thank you Lazarus, my whole defense of Gas these past few posts has just become a waste of time. Good thing I plan to live forever

Edit : now to lighten the mood, the cartoons that follow the one I've posted. I'm sure immortalists will all appreciate :




Nefastor

Edited by nefastor, 30 March 2008 - 07:11 PM.

[Brainbox]

We try to compensate for our genetic and developmental flaws by trying to adopt complex concepts, instead of having the open mindedness to look at our own individual errors, acknowledge them and deal with them. The irony is that some of these concepts did exactly have this goal, but were unable to reach each individual in a way that they are / were able to aquire the required level of individual open mindedness. In a practical way that is. What some of these complex movements did acomplish is a collective feeling of numbness, which is something entirely different, although at macro-level seems to have a (short term) desirable effect.

I'm not sure at all what you're trying to say...

... and in yet another strike of synchronicity (the only paranormal thing I believe in, from experience) : I was just getting up to date with my favorite web-comic when I came across this cartoon, which is very appropriate for this thread.

To give you some context : the characters belong to a mercenary organization, and one of their most evil past employers has just been assassinated. This is cause for celebration. After the festivities end :



It's one of my pet peeves : a lot of smart stuff gets posted on forums, but exactly how much of it can you actually use ? While talking is important, acting is even more important. And it's clear religious organisations (including sects) are into action just as they are into talking. We atheists, on the other hand, are mostly into talking, and most of that talking is highly-abstract stuff.

It may please our egos to show each other how smart we are, but all the smarts we display here wouldn't stop an illiterate religious zealot from killing us all. Perhaps a similar realization is what prompted the creation and release of the Fitna movie.

Nefastor

(P.S. : if you enjoy military sci-fi novels such as the Vorkosigan and Honor Harrington sagas, you'll definitely enjoy this web-comic : Schlock Mercenary. It's been going on daily for 7 years uninterrupted)

Ha, very nice and very applicable to us Sunday-afternoon free thinking philosophers trying to find way's to change the world

The point I was trying to make (I guess) is that oppression or self-restriction does not lead to open mindedness, but instead leads to numbness, that leads to frustration on the long run.

[Brainbox]

I have watched the movie, and i have no problems with it, finaly it is the truth about radical Islam, and we should defend our freedom against these insane maniacs or they will take over the world and turn it in a nightmare.
Everybody who thinks the quran is more than a bad work of fiction should be sent back to Idiotistan or another of these primitive, barbaric countrys.
Thats my opinion!

The point I'm trying to make is that we should be clever enough to come up with something better than that.

And, to compensate a bit for the Dutch bewildering Wilders influence on wordly wilderness affairs, an example of UN initiatives that are indeed a lot more clever.

[inawe]

Inawe I apologize for not raising a gun in defense of the likes of Gas but I frankly am not the moral equal to the ACLU.

I posted before that I think a moderator had the right to suspend
gas*. Even kick him out for good. So I wasn't defending gus*. I was
just pointing out there is much worse stuff in the Koran than what
gas* posted.

I think that nefastor is right in his reading of the Koran. It's more
than a religious book. It's a manual for how we should do anything
once Islam takes over the world. Because that's what the islamists are
aiming at.

But I don't agree with nefastor in that he's grouping all people who
call themselves muslims together. Hopefully, most of them are what's
called "moderates". We should try to convince these moderates to not
send their children to madrassas where they are brainwashed from the
Koran. It would be great if, as a first step, they adopt a different
"holy" book. Koran-light, with all the crap about killing infidels
taken out.

Meanwhile, we infidels shouldn't be afraid of speaking out and do what
we think is right.

[Brainbox]

I think that nefastor is right in his reading of the Koran. It's more
than a religious book. It's a manual for how we should do anything
once Islam takes over the world. Because that's what the islamists are
aiming at.

But I don't agree with nefastor in that he's grouping all people who
call themselves muslims together. Hopefully, most of them are what's
called "moderates". We should try to convince these moderates to not
send their children to madrassas where they are brainwashed from the
Koran. It would be great if, as a first step, they adopt a different
"holy" book. Koran-light, with all the crap about killing infidels
taken out.

Given the circumstances, are we, the western society, the right party to give such an advice? In case we would do that officially, we would aid in the self fulfilling prophecy that is created by the conservative Islam representatives. It fits very nicely in the image of western society trying do diminish Islam by attacking Islam countries based on false premises. We did move ourselves in a position where we cannot give these kind of advices without raising suspicion. Unfortunately.

[Brainbox]

"He (the film's author) could have also chosen quotes from the Koran that say it is a sin to kill another man, it's equal to killing all humanity," State Secretary of Social Affairs Ahmed Aboutaleb told Dutch broadcasters. "But that part didn't work in his favor and that's why he chose the worst parts. If you selectively choose parts, you can find that in any religious book."

Indeed, and that's where I would say "I rest my case" if I were a lawyer arguing against religion. Here you have a religious person telling you, with no ambiguity whatsoever, that you can't have a rational argument with believers because their belief systems allow them to do anything they want AND their opposite, while rationality inherently means you can't.

Case in point : honor killings (we have those in France too, right now, and in the UK also)

Nefastor

This is our religious heritage we will have to deal with. And why the situation is very delicate. You can go either way in interpreting religious teksts, true. So, what to do about that? Feed the religious officials that defend the extremist position that could be detrimental to human development? Or try to find a more subtle and less polarizing position in trying to find common ground?

The honor killings are awfully disgusting. We have to deal with them using our legal system.

[A941]

The point I'm trying to make is that we should be clever enough to come up with something better than that.

That is the best solution, far better than a paralell society with honorkillings, Genital mulitation and "death to all infidels!" !
The first enlightment was a hard and nasty job, i dont want that again with another insane religion, they should do it by themself stay in their islamic Countrys and come back when they have grown up!

[nefastor]

(...) But I don't agree with nefastor in that he's grouping all people who
call themselves muslims together. Hopefully, most of them are what's
called "moderates". We should try to convince these moderates to not
send their children to madrassas where they are brainwashed from the
Koran. It would be great if, as a first step, they adopt a different
"holy" book. Koran-light, with all the crap about killing infidels
taken out.

Did you stop for a second to read what you typed ? Exactly how would you react if someone told you that Darwin's books are too uncompromising and you should instead try something lighter, maybe Intelligent Design ?

Besides, Bible-light (the New Testament) never eclipsed the Old Testament and its total jerk of a God. Why would you expect things to go down any differently with the Quran ?

Given the circumstances, are we, the western society, the right party to give such an advice?

You took the words right out of my brains, Brainbox.

Now, as for my grouping of Muslims : let me develop. It is a purely Christian view that there is such a thing as moderate Muslims. Just like the Old Testament, the Quran is absolutely uncompromising. From discussing religion with a Muslim coworker (an electrical engineer and university graduate, just like me) here's what you should keep in mind :

Islam regards non-Muslims as impurities on the face of Allah's Creation. The reason why Muslims want to convert you is NOT because they want you to have the right faith and thus go to heaven : the reason Muslims want to convert you is because just being NEAR a non-Muslim compromises a Muslim in the eyes of Allah. It is, first and foremost, an egoist consideration.

I don't remember the exact words my colleague used, but the gist of it was, if there's a non-Muslim in a Muslim community, he must be eliminated at all cost, as his mere presence will taint the community. "Eliminating" entails first trying to convert him, by force if necessary (very reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition). Failing that, the non-believer would have to be exiled or killed.

Now, do you better understand why the US Army wasn't greeted as liberators by the Iraqis ? Because they are a deadly stain on holy land.

What you call moderate Muslims, say your average immigrant factory worker, feels the same way about your country : he came there willingly because, say, living conditions were better, but deep down in his heart it infuriates him to be in the midst of non-believers, something he considers a terrible sin.

The most visible effect of this ingrained reaction towards non-Muslims is that Muslims in Western countries huddle together, forming their own communities by all living in the same parts of town. These areas become Muslim communities where non-Muslims are not just persona-non-grata, they are fair game for everything from mugging to murder. There are cases every month in France alone, it doesn't even make the news anymore except in the odd cases where the victim was tortured (last time was about a year ago IIRC)

That, my friends, is as moderate as Muslims get. These are your typical office workers, construction workers... they may not have explosives and AK-47's, but they have knives and still practice ritual slaughtering of animals, often in their bathtubs, one of the many reasons why they coalesce in the seediest parts of town (who would rent them a nice house knowing what they're going to do in it, right ?)

The honor killings are also committed by those you call "moderate". I'll let you be the judge of how moderate it is to kill your own sister for having had sex.

At any rate... I don't like the term "moderate". To me, it's like with drugs : once you start believing fairy tales are real, there is no limit to what you'll come to believe. Ask Tom Cruise.

Nefastor

Edited by nefastor, 30 March 2008 - 09:44 PM.

[A941]

Another interesting Question: Are fanatic Muslims a threat to our goals?
Is religion in general a problem for us?

[forever freedom]

Another interesting Question: Are fanatic Muslims a threat to our goals?
Is religion in general a problem for us?

I think the answer is a definite yes for both questions, no need to think much why.

[Brainbox]

(...) But I don't agree with nefastor in that he's grouping all people who
call themselves muslims together. Hopefully, most of them are what's
called "moderates". We should try to convince these moderates to not
send their children to madrassas where they are brainwashed from the
Koran. It would be great if, as a first step, they adopt a different
"holy" book. Koran-light, with all the crap about killing infidels
taken out.

Did you stop for a second to read what you typed ? Exactly how would you react if someone told you that Darwin's books are too uncompromising and you should instead try something lighter, maybe Intelligent Design ?

Besides, Bible-light (the New Testament) never eclipsed the Old Testament and its total jerk of a God. Why would you expect things to go down any differently with the Quran ?

Given the circumstances, are we, the western society, the right party to give such an advice?

You took the words right out of my brains, Brainbox.

Now, as for my grouping of Muslims : let me develop. It is a purely Christian view that there is such a thing as moderate Muslims. Just like the Old Testament, the Quran is absolutely uncompromising. From discussing religion with a Muslim coworker (an electrical engineer and university graduate, just like me) here's what you should keep in mind :

Islam regards non-Muslims as impurities on the face of Allah's Creation. The reason why Muslims want to convert you is NOT because they want you to have the right faith and thus go to heaven : the reason Muslims want to convert you is because just being NEAR a non-Muslim compromises a Muslim in the eyes of Allah. It is, first and foremost, an egoist consideration.

I don't remember the exact words my colleague used, but the gist of it was, if there's a non-Muslim in a Muslim community, he must be eliminated at all cost, as his mere presence will taint the community. "Eliminating" entails first trying to convert him, by force if necessary (very reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition). Failing that, the non-believer would have to be exiled or killed.

Now, do you better understand why the US Army wasn't greeted as liberators by the Iraqis ? Because they are a deadly stain on holy land.

What you call moderate Muslims, say your average immigrant factory worker, feels the same way about your country : he came there willingly because, say, living conditions were better, but deep down in his heart it infuriates him to be in the midst of non-believers, something he considers a terrible sin.

The most visible effect of this ingrained reaction towards non-Muslims is that Muslims in Western countries huddle together, forming their own communities by all living in the same parts of town. These areas become Muslim communities where non-Muslims are not just persona-non-grata, they are fair game for everything from mugging to murder. There are cases every month in France alone, it doesn't even make the news anymore except in the odd cases where the victim was tortured (last time was about a year ago IIRC)

That, my friends, is as moderate as Muslims get. These are your typical office workers, construction workers... they may not have explosives and AK-47's, but they have knives and still practice ritual slaughtering of animals, often in their bathtubs, one of the many reasons why they coalesce in the seediest parts of town (who would rent them a nice house knowing what they're going to do in it, right ?)

The honor killings are also committed by those you call "moderate". I'll let you be the judge of how moderate it is to kill your own sister for having had sex.

At any rate... I don't like the term "moderate". To me, it's like with drugs : once you start believing fairy tales are real, there is no limit to what you'll come to believe. Ask Tom Cruise.

Nefastor

Ok, it's nasty. We have 2 main options.

-
Try to wipe them from the earth, which puts us in the same league. Would it be possible to implement this in practice? I'm sure it's not. As far as I'm concerned this is not even a hypothetical option.

-
Trying to connect to find common ground. And, of coarse, keep our defences up and running in the meantime and keep immigration to an acceptable level. Open-mindedness combined with good defense and balance between rationalism and ideology.


The current state Islam seems to be in is not very different as compared to our Christian society of about 500 years ago. It's impossible to synchronise them.

So as uncomfortable and frustrating as it is the best course of action is to confront ideology with ideology and that involves discourse, debate, trade, *social engagement* social experimentation and all those frustrating slow *evolutionary* models that many feel we do not have time for.

As we have accelerated technological progress we have become more and more impatient with the pace of social evolution and this is in part because of a false analogy to the pace of progress for technology.

Yep. Even additional polarisation is not be able to speed things up.

Edited by brainbox, 30 March 2008 - 11:56 PM.

[solbanger]

what do you prefer, really ? Being defeated and killed while keeping a good conscience ?

It's actually a question I struggle with continuously.

But I fully intend to shun and ostracise those who've partaken of highly immoral activity during their lives. What use is immortality if you don't have a proper society to live in?

Learn history, dude : in feudal Japan, being gay was very much OK especially in the higher castes, starting with the samurai.

Your notions of morality are yours and yours alone. And you are incredibly stupid if you think you'll feel the same way about morality when you've aged a thousand years.

As for "proper society" : based on history and the huge number of now-fallen civilization, it's a fact that ALL societies have been "proper" for their inhabitants, even decadent Rome. Based on the observed LIFESPAN of societies, I can also guaratee that as an immortal you'll get to live in, and outlive, a large number of societies. Over just the last 300 years France alone has gone through two monarchies, two empires and five republics, with wild variations in borders... and moral standards.

Nefastor

(edited for grammar)

I think Nefastor does bring up a good point when it comes to dealing with deceptive groups, much less individuals, who have a join us or die attitude. This is an important question, especially when dealing with a religion such as Islam which not only does not listen to brute force, but also rejects capitalistic measures to soften its edges. Muslims also have a tendancy to act in organized fashion to plot against any corrupting force whether it be an intruder or a host country that they find offensive. Unlike other minorites who act out their rage in isolated blasts of rape/revenge, Muslims scheme for much greater. Although they do their fair share of person-to-person crimes since a huge number of malicious sex crimes in Europe are committed by Muslims. However they also network partnerships with each other so that the idea of say, blowing up a dam, can build up resources.

Islam turns its followers into the center of the universe with a short fuse. Is Islam poising itself for annihilation - this doesn't mean killing Arabs, there are lots of non-Islamic Arabs. Although it might mean a psywar. This means adjusting the general attitude which has persisted over the last three thousand years of the men being agents of God and the women deserving of shame. Unfortunately attempts at making Islamic nations into trading centers for western goods was rejected as too liberal by the native Muslims. When they enter into countries such as France they pine for jobs but use the money just to bite the hand that feeds them. Destruction of the Quran probably won't matter, after all lots of groups pluck from the bible what they see fit. They'll just make a new Quran, I'm sure there are people who know it backwards and forwards anyway.

Are there any moral arguments to allow its disciples to continue if their take it or leave it presence threatens the industrial world and thus any hopes of a stable technological progression?

Is morality really a question when a terrorist nation puts a suitcase-nuke gun to our heads?

[nefastor]

Destruction of the Quran probably won't matter, after all lots of groups pluck from the bible what they see fit. They'll just make a new Quran, I'm sure there are people who know it backwards and forwards anyway.

That's actually the only way to know the Quran. Madrassa's are schools where young Muslims, early on, learn the entirety of the Quran by heart, a few surahs at a time. It is also pretty much the only thing they learn, along with the local authorities' interpretation of the Quran.

It is, for all intents and purposes, brainwashing, and the main reason why someone who's otherwise a human being just like you would blow himself up just to kill a few Jews.

I'm not kidding about the brainwashing : the Quran is etched so deep in their brain, no amount of education later in life will do any good. The 9/11 hijackers had college degrees. (article on the hijackers)

Are there any moral arguments to allow (Islam's) disciples to continue if their take it or leave it presence threatens the industrial world and thus any hopes of a stable technological progression?

Is morality really a question when a terrorist nation puts a suitcase-nuke gun to our heads?

I think the fact that Islam is a religion obscures most people's mind, so let me be blunt about it :

In 1945, the genocidal Nazi ideology became a universal symbol of hatred. From then on, names like Adolph Hitler and Joseph Goebbels will evoke the worst in mankind to anyone. Even France, a country at the forefront of freedom of speech, still has a ban in place on Mein Kampf, the "holy scripture" of the Nazis. Several countries in Europe do.

Now let's look at Islam : as I've said, in 1915, a genocide even more atrocious than the Shoa was perpetrated by a Muslim nation, Turkey.

If we draw a parallel with Nazism, Islam should now be held in universal contempt as a racist culture, the Quran should be banned in Europe, names like Allah and Mohamed should be universal symbols of hatred.

Yet it is not the case, and you will find no European country openly anti-Islam. The only reason I can see for this is that Islam is a religion, while Nazism is not.

Because it is a religion, it resonates with the majority of people (who believe in some sort of God). These people have a very hard time faulting Islam, because if you hold a religion accountable for its crimes even once, the jurisprudence will extent to all religions.

And it just so happens the largest religions in the world all have committed atrocities they'd rather everyone forgot about.

If humans were really as intelligent as they claim they are, they should look at Islam, realize how much it looks like Nazism, and fight it with the same desperate energy we fought Nazi Germany. They should look at the Pope, see him as the leader of the modern Inquisition, and decide Christianity's long history of violence and hatred makes it evil.

But humans are not nearly as intelligent as they believe they are. In the immortal words of Coluche (I'm translating) : "people always think they are intelligent enough, because intelligence is what you use to measure intelligence. So they'll always think they have enough, it's a vicious cycle."

In the end, we don't need intelligence on this one : only our survival instinct. A book that tells people to burn to death those who don't agree with its contents... it's a pretty big threat to our survival, if not as a species, at least as a civilization. We should treat that threat appropriately.

It's not like it hasn't been done before (or at least attempted) : think about the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a pseudo-religion that was created to help defeat, through derision, those who lobby to get Intelligent Design (Creationism) taught in US schools.

Nefastor

[Brainbox]

You could call it a doctrine, which sounds a bit more nasty then religion. This would result in an inflation of terminology since this is applicable to other religions as well.

We do not gain anything with these kind of discussions other then creation of intra-cohesion within our part of society. What we need is something that gets us out of this vicious circle instead of amplifying it.

[inawe]

We do not gain anything with these kind of discussions other then creation of intra-cohesion within our part of society. What we need is something that gets us out of this vicious circle instead of amplifying it.

You hit the nail (or the bigots) on the head. The only solution is to break the vicious circle. Or break the ones who make the circle vicious.
I posted on this thread because I think we should resist impositions from any religion. Some muslim groups are more forceful than other religions. We cannot let them interfere with any of our freedoms.
I have to clarify my position. I understand that the problem with islam, as with other religions, is purely cultural. Genetically, muslims as the pope, are close to 100% the same as me.
Of course that economic and other factors influence the culture, which makes it so much harder even to think of a solution.
Islamists still invoke the memory of the crusades as a justification for their atrocities against infidels. On the other side, there are bigots grouping together all muslims and calling for their elimination. Sane people have to oppose the crazies from both sides.

[nefastor]

You could call it a doctrine, which sounds a bit more nasty then religion. This would result in an inflation of terminology since this is applicable to other religions as well.

We do not gain anything with these kind of discussions other then creation of intra-cohesion within our part of society. What we need is something that gets us out of this vicious circle instead of amplifying it.

Religion, doctrine... this is just vocabulary.

I don't see what's wrong with reinforcing the cohesion within "our part of society". You do realize the biggest strength of the Muslim is cohesion that transcends borders. If we cannot achieve that ourselves, we are at a disadvantage.

The problem with atheist is, we refuse to take an important page from the book of religious proselytism, and make it our own. The strategy of proselytism involves, among other things :

- Early indoctrination of youth. Something atheists don't even think about, as if kids weren't worthy of an explanation as to why God is a flawed construct and how virgin birth is impossible. Oh, and by indoctrination, I don't mean the consumerist corporate brainwashing your kids soak-up when they watch TV. I'm talking full-on atheist schools equivalent to Madrassas, where there would be entire classes devoted to teaching kids about all the horrors ever committed in the name of Gods.

- Demand for the respect of our "faith" (or lack thereof) : that one is tricky since we have no temples, no holy places, no scripture, and I'm not sure we should ever have any. I'd replace it for the demand for the respect of our minds. As in : "I'm an rocket scientist, you insult my intelligence by asking me to give credit to a book that says the Earth is flat and is the center of the universe, therefore I'm entitled to burn you alive".

- Copious bashing of other faiths : here you might think I'm doing my part, and then some but in reality telling the truth is not "bashing". I'm talking about making absurd yet vaguely believable claims about other faiths. For instance : "Christianity is a religion of child molesters". Imagine what would happen if all the atheists went down in the streets shouting that ? We'd finally look crazy enough to deserve the same type of scared respect Islam and Christianity are getting.

Mark my words, if atheists remain in their ivory towers, marveling at their own intelligence and thinking the rest of the world will eventually grow up and reach their level... atheists will end-up dead when the next dark age hits (which, in the age of atomic weapons and military-grade ebola, could be five minutes from now).

We all understand you can't defeat AIDS or dam a river or send robots to Mars with words alone, now it is time to understand religion is never going to die of old age and that we're going to kicks in the head repeatedly if we want to get rid of it.

Nefastor

[niner]

While I respect Nefastor's family history and the pain that has been suffered there, I still am uncomfortable with some of the generalizing that is happening in this thread. I have a lot of friends that are Christians of various flavors, and they are fine people. Better than me in a lot of ways. I've known a handful of people from Islamic backgrounds who were not particularly strong adherents to the religion, and they too were fine people. There are extreme Christianists in America that scare the hell out of me. I think they represent a threat to our culture, and when one of their own gets into the Whitehouse, they are a threat to the world. Within this thread there seems to be a view by some that all Muslims are ultimately part of the extremist wing, that the extremism is intrinsic to the religion. Frankly, that strikes me as rather unlikely. I'm not exactly a friend of memetic religions, but some of the commentary here goes too far, in my view.

[Brainbox]

While I respect Nefastor's family history and the pain that has been suffered there, I still am uncomfortable with some of the generalizing that is happening in this thread. I have a lot of friends that are Christians of various flavors, and they are fine people. Better than me in a lot of ways. I've known a handful of people from Islamic backgrounds who were not particularly strong adherents to the religion, and they too were fine people. There are extreme Christianists in America that scare the hell out of me. I think they represent a threat to our culture, and when one of their own gets into the Whitehouse, they are a threat to the world. Within this thread there seems to be a view by some that all Muslims are ultimately part of the extremist wing, that the extremism is intrinsic to the religion. Frankly, that strikes me as rather unlikely. I'm not exactly a friend of memetic religions, but some of the commentary here goes too far, in my view.

In this context I'd like to add an interesting statement, made by a Dutch Jewish organisation. It's suprisingly mild, although somewhat unilateral in my view.... The original Dutch press release and a quick English translation that I based upon bablefish due to lack of time to do it properly.

Harry de Winter beschuldigt Wilders van racisme
17 maart 2008, 8:22 | BNR.nl
Programmamaker Harry de Winter heeft in een paginabrede advertentie op de voorpagina van de Volkskrant Geert Wilders beschuldigd van racisme. 'Als Wilders hetzelfde over Joden (en het Oude Testament) gezegd zou hebben als wat hij nu over Moslims (en de Koran) uitkraamt, dan was hij allang afgeserveerd en veroordeeld wegens antisemitisme', aldus de tekst van de advertentie.

De Winter heeft de tekst geplaatst mede namens de Stichting de Initiatieven en Een Ander Joods Geluid, waarvan hij een van de oprichters is.

In een interview elders in de krant vergelijkt de producent de stellingname van Wilders tegen de islam met de manier waarop in de jaren dertig van de vorige eeuw de aanzet tot de Holocaust werd gegeven. ,,Wilders betoogt dat dé moslim moet worden aangepakt en dat de Koran een fascistisch boek is. Zo is ooit de vervolging van de Joden begonnen, door het veralgemeniseren van zaken.''

De presentator van Wintertijd roept Joden op zich scherper uit te spreken tegen Wilders. ,,Er is voor mij geen verschil tussen het keppeltje en de hoofddoek. Ik hoop dat we bijval krijgen uit de gehele Joodse kring. Want wij kunnen ons hier als geen ander in herkennen.''

Moslims zouden zich minder over één kam moeten laten scheren. ,,De moslimgemeenschap zou zich openlijker moeten uitspreken tegen het terrorisme.''

Harry de Winter accuses Wilders of racism 17 March 2008, 8.22 | BNR.nl

Media professional Harry de Winter did accuse Geert Wilders of racism in page-broad advertisement. ‘If Wilders would have said the same things concerning Jews (and the old testament) as what he says now concerning Moslems (and the koran), then he would have been condemned because of anti-Semitism ', as stated by the advertisement.

De Winter did publish the text on behalf of the foundation ‘the initiatives’ and ‘another Jewish sound’, of which he is the co-founder.

In an interview in the newspaper elsewhere the producer compares the position of Wilders against Islam with the way the start was given to the beginnings to the holocaust in the thirties of the last century. ‘Wilders demonstrates that the Moslem must be tackled and that the koran is a fascist book. This is the same way the prosecution of the Jews did start, by generalising issues.' [Here he makes a stament that the characteristic way of dressing of jews and muslims should not make a difference]. I hope that we get assistance from the whole Jewish community. Because we can recognise ourselves in this situation like no other.'

'Moslems should not allow them to be generalised. The Moslem community should pronounce itself against terrorism more openly.'

Edited by brainbox, 01 April 2008 - 12:22 AM.