Why not? Of course there's a sensible argument possible. I think you have to argue about religion. I still have no idea why people believe in holy books. That's why I am so fascinated by them. No matter what they are. The old testament is one of the most disgusting ones, because it condones genocide and teaches racial hatred and bigotry - Yet a good portion of people on this planet think it's the word of god!
I think that's pretty serious. When hundreds of millions blindly believe in a devine rulebook - be it the tora, the koran or the bible.
I think you should always question your believe. And I know you did. Yet I can't imagine how anyone could continue to believe in any specific deity if they did. When you think that the Jews are wrong, and the Mormons are wrong, and the Muslims are wrong. What reason could you have to continue to think that the Christians are right?

Guess what, I still think I was right.
--The first thing you said was "that's out of context" But I didn't even quote anything!! I just pointed to the verse. And the second thing: "You don't get it." - period.
And that's basically what you repeated over and over again. Going over that again, I don't know why I even responded.

Okely-Dokely!

How about D'oh?

I suppose it is so easy for muslims to call out others on how intolerant non muslims can be towards muslims, yet they don't condemn their own when they are guilty of barbarism. Also, contrary to what a muslim would like you to believe, the quran, just like the bible or torah is NOT written by god, but by man, period!

Link to 'teddy bear' case: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7112929.stm

P.S I am also waiting for any muslims on this board to codemn the latest acts in Saudi Arabia, and now in Sudan as BrianL mentioned.

Latest happenings in the case of the woman raped, it seems she has now 'confessed' into having an affair. Hrmm, confessed, as in possibly being tortured/coerced into changing her story to benefit her prosecutors? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7112999.stm

I thought it was the 'Islamic Jihadists' who were being killed in large numbers.

Anyway, I'm muslim by birth but an atheist (if that's the right word) by temperament.

tbutttbutt

Correct, they are called suicide bombers. In their everlasting quest for paradise, martydom and 72 virgins. So much for the value of life, death is celebrated a lot more than life when it comes to jihadists.

Leaving aside the extremists and fanatics in any group, what are people who drive others to become suicide bombers called?

I guess when there is nothing to celebrate in life only death can be 'celebrated'.

Don't get me wrong - I don't want to start any religious wars - here or elsewhere!

tbutttbutt

That's your excuse for them, is it? That these suicide bombers feel so oppressed and without hope that their only option is the mass murder of innocent people?

No, their excuse is that they know with all their heart that they are doing the right thing, because the interpretation of the Qur'an by their sect leader sais so. They only do what they are commanded. - The famous Nürnberg defense.

Circular Reference
 

Imams, mullahs - whatever you call someone preaching hatred and bigotry in a mosque.

Yet another "Yes, but..." muslim.

You've just put forward the worst, stupidest, and most reprehensible argument you could possibly advance.

Why is it that so many lose their sense of realism as soon as the subject of islamic fundamentalism comes up? I don't have much sympathy for them, in fact, their acts can't be condemned enough - but it's ludicrous to pretend that there is so much more wisdom in us Western folks.

Case in point. In spite of the "Gott mit uns", nazism had little if anything to do with religion. And to nazism, we should add the entertaining histories of communism, colonialism (did you know that the British ran the first concentration camps in history? Have you read about the horrors of Belgian colonialism perpetrated in the Congo?), the massive ecocide continuing today in spite of what we know. Women being cattle until they finally acquired some rights less than a century ago. Apartheid, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, Palestine, Iraq, the resurgence of fascism in Eastern Europe, tight immigration laws while half of the world is starving, deforestation, massive pollution in third world countries because of Western companies exploiting the lack of regulation in those areas. So why should fundamentalists listen to the voice of "reason"?

Nazism and religion have a lot of common. They dictate point of view and don't tolerate any decent for one.

Religion came a long way, and I don't see Christians killing non-Christians in the name of god at will, as they did, let say, in America 500 years ago. And we have to thank Russians for not letting the world to see how would Nazism would have evolved if they won.

It is not ethnic - it is religious. Bosnia: Christians vs. Muslims; Palestine: Jews-Muslims (Muslims want "Jews drawn in the sea"), Iraq: Shia-Sunni, both Muslims but one consider itself more Muslim then another.

The rest of your post sounds just like the left-wing propaganda. Putting all world ills into one big pile, and blaming it on the first world. I don't deny that developed world bear part responsibility for what happening around, but I don't think it is our responsibility to get involved everywhere either. And as a matter of fact, if our immigration laws were less liberal, then Paris suburbs would not be on fire, Twin towers would have stood, and London would had two more buses.

this might change your mind, then it might not.
Choice is up to you:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

It Had To Happen
 

So now we can officially see Godwin's Law at work.

I don't recall anyone in this thread equating national socialism and religion except you.

So for all these "sins" put forward in your rant, islamofascism is somehow permissible? I'm having difficulty making the connection.

I may have missed the post where anyone attempted to "reason" with jihadists. Anyone with a frontal lobe would know that it would be a complete waste of time to argue with any religious fanatic.

You're overlooking one major trait that all humans share, the
tendency (and that's a term from human ethology) to be very
prone to pseudo specification. Humans have that problem that they
can only form an individual bond with a very limited number of
people - back in the olden days it was the clan, the tribe, the
extended family. Everyone else was suspicious, and in many
tribal languages you'll find that the word for the own tribe
was a synonym for human (or man), and all other tribes were
considered non-human, and killing those for resources or territory
was perfectly acceptable. In our more "enlightened time and age"
it's slightly different. Family bonds in the wider sense are
falling apart. New means to maintain a sustainable level of
identification need to be found. There's football fans, there's
Goths, there's Muslim, there's Americans (of course, split into
"Yanks" and "RedNecks", black, white, hispanic ... still too big,
let's throw in Religion, so we have Catholic, Baptist, Reformed
Baptists, Southern Baptists ... ).

In terms of conflict those distinctions are commonly not the driver,
but the means to organise. The drivers are commercial interests,
or plain good old power. The "uniting factors" then get emphasised
by the leading crew (plutocracy, oligarchy, dictator - take your pick)
to get the crowd to support their cause.

If you firmly believe that religion is the cause of all evil you're just
prone to the pseudo-specification between the "intelligent atheists"
and the "stupid believers".




Cheers,
Tink