Jesus Christ!

[Snorri1234]

To millions of Muslims, Muhammad is that something they care about, and depicting him in any way, especially in a satirical way, is the worst thing you could do to him, short of outright saying that he's a false prophet.

I forget what band did it, but one of their covers had Jesus masturbating in the garden of gethsemene. I didn't see a lot of Christians, even the uber-Fundies from the Bible Belt, go on the warpath like the aforementioned Muslims. I understand it offended them, but there is no reason to go all crazy about it.

And Greenoaks: Iran needs nukes like dead people need car insurance. What's the first thing they'll do? Why, nuke their neighbors in Iraq, that's what. Especally those pesky Sunnis and Kurds. From there, Israel.

That is all assuming that Israel can't just airstrike the facillity like they did will Iraq. Or that the US will not be in the region at all. Worse comes to worst, and they launch for us, we have a system that might just be able to shoot them down.

you are an american, you should know everybody has the right to bare arms

Not convicted felons or those deemed mentally unfit to handle them. I don't think Iran is mentally fit to handle nukes.

I don't think Bush is either, but that's not stopping him.

[Grooveman2007]

To millions of Muslims, Muhammad is that something they care about, and depicting him in any way, especially in a satirical way, is the worst thing you could do to him, short of outright saying that he's a false prophet.

I forget what band did it, but one of their covers had Jesus masturbating in the garden of gethsemene. I didn't see a lot of Christians, even the uber-Fundies from the Bible Belt, go on the warpath like the aforementioned Muslims. I understand it offended them, but there is no reason to go all crazy about it.

And Greenoaks: Iran needs nukes like dead people need car insurance. What's the first thing they'll do? Why, nuke their neighbors in Iraq, that's what. Especally those pesky Sunnis and Kurds. From there, Israel.

That is all assuming that Israel can't just airstrike the facillity like they did will Iraq. Or that the US will not be in the region at all. Worse comes to worst, and they launch for us, we have a system that might just be able to shoot them down.

you are an american, you should know everybody has the right to bare arms

Not convicted felons or those deemed mentally unfit to handle them. I don't think Iran is mentally fit to handle nukes.

I don't think Bush is either, but that's not stopping him.

Yeah, but it's too late to stop bush from getting them, we still have a chanch with Iran.

[Napoleon Ier]

Obviously christianity is a religion of peace and love and Islam is only a violent and hatefull religion filled with barbarians.

I've already demonstrated how, through it's lack of recognition of the temporal/spiritual divide, and the absence of dichotomy between a religious practice and society at large, and it's violently proselytizing, Islam is a dangerous, proto-fascist religion, but this has been met only by confused squeals asserting that if one religion is barbaric, surely then all other must be too, since our glorious politically correct overlords in Brussels tell us all religions are equal...

So snorrarse, seeing as how Guiscard has refused to do so, I want to ask you in want measure your beliefs aren't just a knee-jerk "all religions must be equal, (though some, Islam in particular, are more equal than others)" reaction.

Is your belief that Islam is a tolerant religion of peace and love falsifiable, snorrarse? Or is it just more politically correct white noise you're spouting onto this forum?

[Snorri1234]

I've already demonstrated how, through it's lack of recognition of the temporal/spiritual divide, and the absence of dichotomy between a religious practice and society at large, and it's violently proselytizing, Islam is a dangerous, proto-fascist religion,

You have done none of that. All you have done is avoid questions on why christianity can not be considered violent. You claim you're right by pointing out barbaric practices in islamic countries, but then ignore any example of barbaric practices in christian countries and christian history.

but this has been met only by confused squeals asserting that if one religion is barbaric, surely then all other must be too, since our glorious politically correct overlords in Brussels tell us all religions are equal...

Bullshit, we point out that christianity is just a barbaric because of the rich history filled with slaughter and oppression all in the name of Christianity.

So snorrarse, seeing as how Guiscard has refused to do so, I want to ask you in want measure your beliefs aren't just a knee-jerk "all religions must be equal" reaction.

It's not knee-jerk. In fact, I consider a lot of religions way better than islam. Christianity is not one of those however.

(though some, Islam in particular, are more equal than others)"

Making false claims is not helping your point, my dear.

Is your belief that Islam is a tolerant religion of peace and love

Did I ever say that? I guess I didn't.

Next time try grasping the actual point.

[Napoleon Ier]

I've already demonstrated how, through it's lack of recognition of the temporal/spiritual divide, and the absence of dichotomy between a religious practice and society at large, and it's violently proselytizing, Islam is a dangerous, proto-fascist religion,

You have done none of that. All you have done is avoid questions on why christianity can not be considered violent. You claim you're right by pointing out barbaric practices in islamic countries, but then ignore any example of barbaric practices in christian countries and christian history.

but this has been met only by confused squeals asserting that if one religion is barbaric, surely then all other must be too, since our glorious politically correct overlords in Brussels tell us all religions are equal...

Bullshit, we point out that christianity is just a barbaric because of the rich history filled with slaughter and oppression all in the name of Christianity.

So snorrarse, seeing as how Guiscard has refused to do so, I want to ask you in want measure your beliefs aren't just a knee-jerk "all religions must be equal" reaction.

It's not knee-jerk. In fact, I consider a lot of religions way better than islam. Christianity is not one of those however.

(though some, Islam in particular, are more equal than others)"

Making false claims is not helping your point, my dear.

Is your belief that Islam is a tolerant religion of peace and love

Did I ever say that? I guess I didn't.

Next time try grasping the actual point.

You're deeply confused. I have never claimed that we can use the praxis of Islam against it, I have purely used it's ideological basis and the actions of Mohammad (which count as an ideological base, as the actions of our Lord do, perhaps this is why you didn't understand?).

However, your contention seems t be that Islam is violent, but that Christianity is more violent because Christians have been (according to your warped world view) more violent in past. By virtue of which standard, I argue atheism is a violent, syncretic juxtaposition of neo-Nazism and Communism, because Stalin and Hitler were atheist.

But, as I anticipate you'll squeal, the fact they were atheist and made warped conclusions based on their atheism, doesn't make the actual religious ideology of atheism evil. And you would be entirely correct.

So I ask again: if we rule out the actions of aheists, muslims and Christians as basis for judging their respective religions/ideologies, and we use purely the content of the latter, Islam is a crude proto-fascist political system, at best.

To which, you have only squealed WRONZOR!111!!!, without offering any more serious a rebuttal than "teh Crusaids111!!". So, I, judging this to be a knee-jerk reaction (which it is), ask you: is your belief in how wonderful islam is falsifiable?

[comic boy]

Dont despair Snorri, I'm sure once he reaches puberty he will learn some common sense.

[Napoleon Ier]

Dont despair Snorri, I'm sure once he reaches puberty he will learn some common sense.

Are you just going to inject bizarre remarks no one finds funny every now and again or do you have anything to contribute to the debate? Perhaps you can answer in what measure your belief is falsifiable? I'm sure, after all, you're entirely familiar with the philosophical concepts I'm helping snorrarse get to grips with...

[comic boy]

Yeh once your bollox drop everything becomes much clearer.

[Napoleon Ier]

Yeh once your bollox drop everything becomes much clearer.

Is that what they told you? I hate to dissapoint you, but I can tell you the epiphany you're expecting isn't really acheived that way.

Rather than perpetually wait until the NHS give you your taxpayer funded sex change though, comic_rentboy, how about you pick up a book? I hear when you learn to read, everything becomes much clearer...

[comic boy]

Good idea
Perhaps a nice bit of Science fiction stuffed with virgin births, zombies and space daddies....ripping stuff !

[Snorri1234]

You're deeply confused. I have never claimed that we can use the praxis of Islam against it, I have purely used it's ideological basis and the actions of Mohammad (which count as an ideological base, as the actions of our Lord do, perhaps this is why you didn't understand?).

The problem however is that you have repeatedly used examples as a justification. Like that girl who got stoned for getting raped? You act like you only base your ideas on the ideological basis, but it's pretty clear you actually don't.
In fact, it would be impossible to do that. I mean, you wouldn't be saying all this shit if the islamic community didn't do any of the things you keep on ranting about.

However, your contention seems t be that Islam is violent, but that Christianity is more violent

Not at all.

because Christians have been (according to your warped world view) more violent in past. By virtue of which standard, I argue atheism is a violent, syncretic juxtaposition of neo-Nazism and Communism, because Stalin and Hitler were atheist.

NO YOU DIPSHIT! It's not my warped world view, it's the fucking truth. Are you saying that christians haven't been unbelievably violent in the past? Or were they not true christians? (Despite using scripture to justify their actions?)

Also, Hitler wasn't an atheist. I think you need to read moar books.

So I ask again: if we rule out the actions of aheists, muslims and Christians as basis for judging their respective religions/ideologies, and we use purely the content of the latter, Islam is a crude proto-fascist political system, at best.

The simple fact of the matter is that you can justify anything using scripture. It's why many christians support the death penalty and don't seem to believe in charity.

I mean, both the catholics and islam have a bunch of leaders who interpret the holy book for you. They claim with straight faces that "what Jesus meant to say was..." and expect their followers to just lap it up, which they fucking do! It was recently decided by a bunch of leaders of the islam (guys with beards and serious faces who are trying to fight a lost war) that Uggs, a type of footwear that is just fucking ugly but whatever, we're un-islamic. They appereantly read in the Quran that women can't wear them.

Honestly, you can justify the weirdest shit, you don't need the ideological basis for it.

[DaGip]

Oh I know bad title for this topic, anyhow.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4676632.stm

That is just pathetic, I want to express whatever I want then if it annoys someone else I don't give a damn. Maybe not the right thing is to shout "allah is gay" in front of a muslim is the best thing to do, but seriously some friggin cartoons in a newspaper?

And now I heard Sudan is going to boycott danish goods, let me get this straight, "we" as in scandinavia aren't the ones needing "more" money. Why would anybody refuse to buy/get good scandinavium goods? That's just foolish.

Don't get me wrong, I have no intentions on saying I have no respect for the muslims and their religion. I have the same respect as I have for all religions.


What do you guys think about this?

I'm a Muslim and I am offended by this whole Conquer Club site! ALLAH UAKBAR!

[Napoleon Ier]

You're deeply confused. I have never claimed that we can use the praxis of Islam against it, I have purely used it's ideological basis and the actions of Mohammad (which count as an ideological base, as the actions of our Lord do, perhaps this is why you didn't understand?).

However, your contention seems t be that Islam is violent, but that Christianity is more violent because Christians have been (according to your warped world view) more violent in past. By virtue of which standard, I argue atheism is a violent, syncretic juxtaposition of neo-Nazism and Communism, because Stalin and Hitler were atheist.

But, as I anticipate you'll squeal, the fact they were atheist and made warped conclusions based on their atheism, doesn't make the actual religious ideology of atheism evil. And you would be entirely correct.

So I ask again: if we rule out the actions of aheists, muslims and Christians as basis for judging their respective religions/ideologies, and we use purely the content of the latter, Islam is a crude proto-fascist political system, at best.

To which, you have only squealed WRONZOR!111!!!, without offering any more serious a rebuttal than "teh Crusaids111!!". So, I, judging this to be a knee-jerk reaction (which it is), ask you: is your belief in how wonderful islam is falsifiable?

lol. i don't unresdtand tihs.

post reserved for when i have had a chance to sift through wikipedia for "arguments for Islam"

This should be good.

[Neutrino]

However, your contention seems t be that Islam is violent, but that Christianity is more violent because Christians have been (according to your warped world view) more violent in past. By virtue of which standard, I argue atheism is a violent, syncretic juxtaposition of neo-Nazism and Communism, because Stalin and Hitler were atheist.

But, as I anticipate you'll squeal, the fact they were atheist and made warped conclusions based on their atheism, doesn't make the actual religious ideology of atheism evil. And you would be entirely correct.

The problem with this argument is that not almost every Athiest for several hundred years held Stalin/Hitler's views. Now, I'm not implying that the entirety of Christianity during the Middle Ages were brutal mass murderers but the common view was very similar to what you decry in Islam now.

I've asked this many times in many different threads and never recieved a satisfactory answer: why is Islam at fault for failing to be exceptional? Christianity only became the relatively peaceful religion it is today through sheer dumb luck, nothing more. Make a few slight changes to history and it'll be the Chinese insulting these barbaric Europeans for their oppressive religion on an internet forum.
Why aren't you dedicating long posts to the oppressiveness of Hinduism? I would wager that's esssentially as oppressive as Islam. Or African/Oceanic/South American tribal religions? I'm sure there's a religion out there, somewhere, that states women are to be kept on leashes at all times. I would be inclined to believe that this qualifys as far worse than anything that mainstream Islam could concievably do.

[Napoleon Ier]

I've asked this many times in many different threads and never recieved a satisfactory answer: why is Islam at fault for failing to be exceptional? Christianity only became the relatively peaceful religion it is today through sheer dumb luck, nothing more. Make a few slight changes to history and it'll be the Chinese insulting these barbaric Europeans for their oppressive religion on an internet forum.

Yeah, but then you could look at the basic tenets of Christianity, it's moral doctrine and precepts, and conclude it wasn't barbaric. I'd also contest that "a few slight changes"would have kept us all in the dark ages.

Why aren't you dedicating long posts to the oppressiveness of Hinduism? I would wager that's esssentially as oppressive as Islam. Or African/Oceanic/South American tribal religions? I'm sure there's a religion out there, somewhere, that states women are to be kept on leashes at all times. I would be inclined to believe that this qualifys as far worse than anything that mainstream Islam could concievably do.

Yes, I'm sure such a religion exists too, but it probably has about two followers on some pacific island who are in all likelyhood suggs and Norse.

[Neoteny]

I've asked this many times in many different threads and never recieved a satisfactory answer: why is Islam at fault for failing to be exceptional? Christianity only became the relatively peaceful religion it is today through sheer dumb luck, nothing more. Make a few slight changes to history and it'll be the Chinese insulting these barbaric Europeans for their oppressive religion on an internet forum.

Yeah, but then you could look at the basic tenets of Christianity, it's moral doctrine and precepts, and conclude it wasn't barbaric. I'd also contest that "a few slight changes"would have kept us all in the dark ages.

Why aren't you dedicating long posts to the oppressiveness of Hinduism? I would wager that's esssentially as oppressive as Islam. Or African/Oceanic/South American tribal religions? I'm sure there's a religion out there, somewhere, that states women are to be kept on leashes at all times. I would be inclined to believe that this qualifys as far worse than anything that mainstream Islam could concievably do.

Yes, I'm sure such a religion exists too, but it probably has about two followers on some pacific island who are in all likelyhood suggs and Norse.

And you can look at basic tenets of Islam and come to the same conclusion. Sure there are some parts that must be left out for it to be a sane (at least as far as religion goes) belief system, but you have to do the same picking and choosing for Christianity as well.

[MeDeFe]

Nappy, the "basic tenets" of any given religion are the ones this religion's followers consider to be most important at any given time and how these tenets are interpreted. Take "Thou shalt not kill" for example, on the one hand as in not killing any other person and on the other hand as just not those belonging to your own tribe. There's a fairly large difference between those two interpretations.

[Napoleon Ier]

I've asked this many times in many different threads and never recieved a satisfactory answer: why is Islam at fault for failing to be exceptional? Christianity only became the relatively peaceful religion it is today through sheer dumb luck, nothing more. Make a few slight changes to history and it'll be the Chinese insulting these barbaric Europeans for their oppressive religion on an internet forum.

Yeah, but then you could look at the basic tenets of Christianity, it's moral doctrine and precepts, and conclude it wasn't barbaric. I'd also contest that "a few slight changes"would have kept us all in the dark ages.

Why aren't you dedicating long posts to the oppressiveness of Hinduism? I would wager that's esssentially as oppressive as Islam. Or African/Oceanic/South American tribal religions? I'm sure there's a religion out there, somewhere, that states women are to be kept on leashes at all times. I would be inclined to believe that this qualifys as far worse than anything that mainstream Islam could concievably do.

Yes, I'm sure such a religion exists too, but it probably has about two followers on some pacific island who are in all likelyhood suggs and Norse.

And you can look at basic tenets of Islam and come to the same conclusion. Sure there are some parts that must be left out for it to be a sane (at least as far as religion goes) belief system, but you have to do the same picking and choosing for Christianity as well.

I'd disagree, and therein lies the heart of the debate. Unfortunately for those who want to contend Islam is teh bestzor once you've granted that it's only a matter of ideology, Islam's lack of spiritual/temporal divide, societal dimension (notice how after Mohammad settles at Yathrib, very quickly the Qu'uran becomes a handbook for setting up a theocratic political state), Mohammad's military expansionist words/actions clearly give Christianity, which, at worst, advocates Male headship and a combattant state of Israel with theocratic laws between 1446-roughly 500BC (note of course that there is no global view of dharb-al-islam vs. abode of war), a net advantage on the whole moral palatibility department.

[Neutrino]

Yeah, but then you could look at the basic tenets of Christianity, it's moral doctrine and precepts, and conclude it wasn't barbaric. I'd also contest that "a few slight changes"would have kept us all in the dark ages.

What they said. "Basic tenets" is an extremely subjective term. The Crusaders convinced themselves that Christianity's "basic tenets" commanded them to go and smite the infidel. Now you say that Christianity commanded no such thing. Who can tell who's correct?

And yes, a "few slight changes" could have easily kept Europe in the dark ages and elevated China to the dominant power. Simply put a few bullets through the heads of the right industralists in Europe and the right Confucians in China and the Industrial Revolution and its predecessors never happen and China's technological edge never gets shut down.

Yes, I'm sure such a religion exists too, but it probably has about two followers on some pacific island who are in all likelyhood suggs and Norse.

Why aren't you attacking that religion too, then? You throw so much effort at Islam and ignore the tens of thousands of other religions that are similar or worse.

[Neoteny]

I've asked this many times in many different threads and never recieved a satisfactory answer: why is Islam at fault for failing to be exceptional? Christianity only became the relatively peaceful religion it is today through sheer dumb luck, nothing more. Make a few slight changes to history and it'll be the Chinese insulting these barbaric Europeans for their oppressive religion on an internet forum.

Yeah, but then you could look at the basic tenets of Christianity, it's moral doctrine and precepts, and conclude it wasn't barbaric. I'd also contest that "a few slight changes"would have kept us all in the dark ages.

Why aren't you dedicating long posts to the oppressiveness of Hinduism? I would wager that's esssentially as oppressive as Islam. Or African/Oceanic/South American tribal religions? I'm sure there's a religion out there, somewhere, that states women are to be kept on leashes at all times. I would be inclined to believe that this qualifys as far worse than anything that mainstream Islam could concievably do.

Yes, I'm sure such a religion exists too, but it probably has about two followers on some pacific island who are in all likelyhood suggs and Norse.

And you can look at basic tenets of Islam and come to the same conclusion. Sure there are some parts that must be left out for it to be a sane (at least as far as religion goes) belief system, but you have to do the same picking and choosing for Christianity as well.

I'd disagree, and therein lies the heart of the debate. Unfortunately for those who want to contend Islam is teh bestzor once you've granted that it's only a matter of ideology, Islam's lack of spiritual/temporal divide, societal dimension (notice how after Mohammad settles at Yathrib, very quickly the Qu'uran becomes a handbook for setting up a theocratic political state), Mohammad's military expansionist words/actions clearly give Christianity, which, at worst, advocates Male headship and a combattant state of Israel with theocratic laws between 1446-roughly 500BC (note of course that there is no global view of dharb-al-islam vs. abode of war), a net advantage on the whole moral palatibility department.

Honestly, and I've argued this before, I think Christianity is morally more palatable to me due to the consistency of Christ's example as opposed to Mohammed's inconsistencies (in short, Christ was a better role model?). But I really can't put a higher value on one whole religion over the other due to the fact that they both have major issues that need to be overcome.

[greenoaks]

I've asked this many times in many different threads and never recieved a satisfactory answer: why is Islam at fault for failing to be exceptional? Christianity only became the relatively peaceful religion it is today through sheer dumb luck, nothing more. Make a few slight changes to history and it'll be the Chinese insulting these barbaric Europeans for their oppressive religion on an internet forum.

Yeah, but then you could look at the basic tenets of Christianity, it's moral doctrine and precepts, and conclude it wasn't barbaric. I'd also contest that "a few slight changes"would have kept us all in the dark ages.

Why aren't you dedicating long posts to the oppressiveness of Hinduism? I would wager that's esssentially as oppressive as Islam. Or African/Oceanic/South American tribal religions? I'm sure there's a religion out there, somewhere, that states women are to be kept on leashes at all times. I would be inclined to believe that this qualifys as far worse than anything that mainstream Islam could concievably do.

Yes, I'm sure such a religion exists too, but it probably has about two followers on some pacific island who are in all likelyhood suggs and Norse.

And you can look at basic tenets of Islam and come to the same conclusion. Sure there are some parts that must be left out for it to be a sane (at least as far as religion goes) belief system, but you have to do the same picking and choosing for Christianity as well.

I'd disagree, and therein lies the heart of the debate. Unfortunately for those who want to contend Islam is teh bestzor once you've granted that it's only a matter of ideology, Islam's lack of spiritual/temporal divide, societal dimension (notice how after Mohammad settles at Yathrib, very quickly the Qu'uran becomes a handbook for setting up a theocratic political state), Mohammad's military expansionist words/actions clearly give Christianity, which, at worst, advocates Male headship and a combattant state of Israel with theocratic laws between 1446-roughly 500BC (note of course that there is no global view of dharb-al-islam vs. abode of war), a net advantage on the whole moral palatibility department.

Honestly, and I've argued this before, I think Christianity is morally more palatable to me due to the consistency of Christ's example as opposed to Mohammed's inconsistencies (in short, Christ was a better role model?). But I really can't put a higher value on one whole religion over the other due to the fact that they both have major issues that need to be overcome.

for starters Christ wasn't a paedophile

[Neoteny]

I've asked this many times in many different threads and never recieved a satisfactory answer: why is Islam at fault for failing to be exceptional? Christianity only became the relatively peaceful religion it is today through sheer dumb luck, nothing more. Make a few slight changes to history and it'll be the Chinese insulting these barbaric Europeans for their oppressive religion on an internet forum.

Yeah, but then you could look at the basic tenets of Christianity, it's moral doctrine and precepts, and conclude it wasn't barbaric. I'd also contest that "a few slight changes"would have kept us all in the dark ages.

Why aren't you dedicating long posts to the oppressiveness of Hinduism? I would wager that's esssentially as oppressive as Islam. Or African/Oceanic/South American tribal religions? I'm sure there's a religion out there, somewhere, that states women are to be kept on leashes at all times. I would be inclined to believe that this qualifys as far worse than anything that mainstream Islam could concievably do.

Yes, I'm sure such a religion exists too, but it probably has about two followers on some pacific island who are in all likelyhood suggs and Norse.

And you can look at basic tenets of Islam and come to the same conclusion. Sure there are some parts that must be left out for it to be a sane (at least as far as religion goes) belief system, but you have to do the same picking and choosing for Christianity as well.

I'd disagree, and therein lies the heart of the debate. Unfortunately for those who want to contend Islam is teh bestzor once you've granted that it's only a matter of ideology, Islam's lack of spiritual/temporal divide, societal dimension (notice how after Mohammad settles at Yathrib, very quickly the Qu'uran becomes a handbook for setting up a theocratic political state), Mohammad's military expansionist words/actions clearly give Christianity, which, at worst, advocates Male headship and a combattant state of Israel with theocratic laws between 1446-roughly 500BC (note of course that there is no global view of dharb-al-islam vs. abode of war), a net advantage on the whole moral palatibility department.

Honestly, and I've argued this before, I think Christianity is morally more palatable to me due to the consistency of Christ's example as opposed to Mohammed's inconsistencies (in short, Christ was a better role model?). But I really can't put a higher value on one whole religion over the other due to the fact that they both have major issues that need to be overcome.

for starters Christ wasn't a paedophile

Chris Hansen wasn't around back then, so we can't know that for sure...

[unriggable]

Napoleon, Christianity is by far more violent than Islam in theory. Deuteronomy 13:6-10.

[Guiscard]

Napoleon, Christianity is by far more violent than Islam in theory. Deuteronomy 13:6-10.

You forget Yappy lives in the Nineteenth Century...

[greenoaks]

Chris Hansen wasn't around back then, so we can't know that for sure...

are you trying to suggest that Christ was a paedophile ?