Understanding the Revolutions in the Middle East

Oh really? My mistake.

Seriously, I'm getting tired of this. I feel like I've said everything that needs to be said, if you all are still not getting it then perhaps it’s my fault for not arguing my position well enough. But if I've at least interested you in what I’m saying and if you are open minded enough then I recommend you read Sam Harris's book The End of Faith. It's a great book, extremely well written, it was a New York Times bestseller, and it single handily changed my opinion of Islam.

Just gonna throw this out there. No offense meant but your opinion about 1.5 billion people (according to the Internet) should probably not be changed because of a single book by a non-Muslim. Again no offense to you.

^ This

And how can you expect us to respect your opinion if you wont respect ours.

Wow. Just wow. My opinion of 1.5 billion people? Seriously... how many times do I need to point this out? I am against the religion not the people who follow it. There is a difference between a belief and the people who hold that belief. Do you really not understand this simple concept? And there's no reason a single book shouldn’t be able to change my opinion on anything. I'm an open minded person and if a good persuasive argument is made then I change my opinion. Read the book.

How am I not respecting your opinion? If any one of you had made a good argument then I would have changed my position. I try to be humble and not get to emotionally attached to my opinions, so it's easy for me to change them. Make a good argument and I will consider what you have to say.

He's saying a whole lot of nothing: that our arguments mean nothing, that we should do nothing, and that nothing will change. He's venting his hatred of Islam, that's it.

The fact of the matter is that extremism exists in every possible venue. As has been stated, there are also a multitude of extremes. You've got the proto-Buddhists of Vietnam immolating themselves in protest of violence and the warrior monks of Japan massacring Christians.

There is a core set of values prescribed by each religion, and being Muslim does separate you quite cleanly from Buddhism or Wicca, but he's made an argument rife with nonsense: that because something can be interpreted one way, that it should be taken as such.

Yes people. What would Islam be without people to practice it. Belief is just as much spiritual as it is physical.

That we should do nothing? There's a whole post I made just about what I think needs to be done. I'm saying nothing will change? I've expressed multiple times my hope that these recent Arab revolutions will be the beginning of change. Venting my hatred of Islam? I'm venting my frustration with misplaced and inconsistent liberal ideals that many of you seem to hold.

Where are the extremist Jain murderers? Do you understand why this matters to my argument?

No. I'm saying that if it can be interpreted one way then we must admit that it can be interpreted in that way, and when it comes to dogmatic religions this is important. Islam can and does justify violence and other forms of cruelty. The only argument you can make to counter this is that Islam has some value to humanity that negates the bad that is done in it's name. Well there isn't. Islam does nothing good that isn't already being done by secular means. So what is it about Islam that you find worth defending?

I get what you're trying to say. But nothing is so one-dimensional as you make it out to be.

And SOME people interpret Pokemon to be a show about a delusional coma victim. There's lots of evidence to support that position when you take portions of it out of context.

Dogmatic religions... Meaning religions with one, established, authoritative view. You've conceded that your view of Islam is just one interpretation, and you've not argued it's even the correct interpretation. This fact alone should highlight the failure in the logic you're using.

If you take things out of context to support your own agenda, or if you are trying to bring some semblance of order to North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula in the 6-7th centuries A.D. then you'd be right.

Because utilitarianism is the ONLY way of looking at EVERYTHING,

and we totally have the information necessary to do an impact calc of Islam not existing...

Oh, and anything intangible isn't real.

I don't have an agenda to defend Islam. I'm not a Muslim. But you're spouting nonsense as fact. And more importantly/annoyingly, you're assuming the intellectual and moral high ground because of your religious beliefs.

Dogmatic religions... Meaning religions with one, established, authoritative view. You've conceded that your view of Islam is just one interpretation, and you've not argued it's even the correct interpretation. This fact alone should highlight the failure in the logic you're using.

If you take things out of context to support your own agenda, or if you are trying to bring some semblance of order to North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula in the 6-7th centuries A.D. then you'd be right.

Because utilitarianism is the ONLY way of looking at EVERYTHING,

and we totally have the information necessary to do an impact calc of Islam not existing...

Oh, and anything intangible isn't real.

I don't have an agenda to defend Islam. I'm not a Muslim. But you're spouting nonsense as fact. And more importantly/annoyingly, you're assuming the intellectual and moral high ground because of your religious beliefs.[/quote:3nxvfi33]

this basically summed up everything i was gonna say when i went to this thread just now

can we say YOU JUST GOT KALIED when kali makes the post divided up, comment on each part, and makes the poster look like an idiot.

Yes Kali just owned him

HE JUST GOT KALIE'D! :lol:

I'm not responding because there's no point in responding. Its become clear to me that I was naive to think that I could change minds on this issue. So I've given up trying and decided to let Kalalification have the last word (and I’m still giving him the last word even though I’m posting now, but I’m responding to the posts saying that I’m an idiot and that I’ve been owned). I think the problem is that this issue is far to complex for me to explain sufficiently and I think it‘s also an emotional topic for many of you, whereas I see this as merely an intellectual disagreement. If you’re open to what I've been saying then read The End of Faith. If you’re not open to what I've been saying then there’s no point in continuing this debate.

However I do just want to add this before I go. It’s a debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges. If you're interested in hearing the arguments and counter arguments and counter counter arguments that I’ve been trying (and probably failing) to get across.
[yt:2lrk29om]Y9_-IeDucFo[/yt:2lrk29om]
[yt:2lrk29om]rZVYfADAnw8[/yt:2lrk29om]

@CorB

I've read through your arguments, and everyone else's, and one thing really stood out for me: I believe you said you believe that any ideology or belief that in itself as a whole, or in just a part of it, can be interpreted as encouraging or promoting violence in any way, for any reason, is bad, and that you are against any such ideology or belief?
I know for certain you said that if an ideology can be interpreted as promoting violence that you believe it should be thrown out and forgotten.

But i believe it is safe to say that any and all beliefs, ideologies, statements, etc. can be interpreted in some way that can make it appear to promote violence. From what i understand of your beliefs, that means that all beliefs, ideologies, statements, etc. should not exist, and are bad for the world and for humans as a whole.

Do you believe that? Because i am not wrong that you said you are against all ideologies and beliefs that can be interpreted as violent. Are you against everything?

I'm not attempting to say that you or anyone else on this thread is wrong about anything that has been said. I have no interest in judging anyone's views. I am just pointing out that, according to what you have said, you are against everything. If i have misunderstood what you said then please feel free to show me that.

Sorry, I suppose I didn't make this clear. I am against irrational (meaning faith based, or accepted without evidence) dogmatic (belief held without question or doubt) ideologies that serve no greater purpose. Not all beliefs, ideologies, or statements are irrational or dogmatic, and they usually serve some greater purpose.

Every belief is dogmatic. And you could argue that faith based belief does serve a greater purpose in society.

I don't really have anything to say in this thread but:

No... just no...

Edit: At least check wikipedia before you say something like that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

In the terms of, "a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.' Every belief system holds at least one opinion that they believe is the stopping block or unchallegable, the absolute truth.

Bahai Faith.

what belief does more good than harm?