Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth – the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate

[PaulF]

Again, it's not about judging. Good for him, I'm glad he's happy for a short time. I'm not glad about his eternal destination, though. Should I be?

You have reached a point of faith, Steve.

No mortal can speak for the afterlife, if such a thing can be believed to exist at all.

We can choose to believe in "revealed truth", but it is a mistake to call it "knowledge"...it is faith. I have learned to be weary of anyone who claims to speak for gods...I have never met one that wasn't selling something for himself.

 

[PaulKersey]

You have reached a point of faith, Steve.

No mortal can speak for the afterlife, if such a thing can be believed to exist at all.

We can choose to believe in "revealed truth", but it is a mistake to call it "knowledge"...it is faith. I have learned to be weary of anyone who claims to speak for gods...I have never met one that wasn't selling something for himself.

Respectfully, this statement you just made is itself a statement of faith. Just as Christians operate on faith, so do atheists. We base our faith on the truths of the Scripture and the reality of the empty tomb, while the atheist bases his faith on the theory that there is nothing to come after death (i.e. Pascal's wager). When you said it is a mistake to call religious belief "knowledge", following your reasoning is it not also a mistake for the atheist to dogmatically characterize his unbelief as "knowledge"? Wouldn't "faith" be a better description of the atheist position as well? After all, just as the Christian has not been beyond the veil of death personally, neither has the atheist.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Local Imam says he was forced to resign because he agrees with Trump on Muslim immigration - KBTV-TV FOX 4 Beaumont - Community News

This guy learns what happens when you go against the political grain.

 

[PaulF]

Atheism is not a system of beliefs, it is the rejection of one specific belief: that gods exist.

It is conceivable that one rejects gods, but still believes in an afterlife of some type, even though this isn't true for me, specifically. I just wanted to make that point before I continued.

Anyone who claims to know what happens to our conscienceness after corporeal death is venturing into matters of faith. We can measure what happens up to the point of death, when the brain stops functioning...if anything happens after that it is a matter of faith...atheist or pious. (I think I admitted to as much in my previous post, if not so elegantly...)

 

[Tombs]

Respectfully, this statement you just made is itself a statement of faith. Just as Christians operate on faith, so do atheists. We base our faith on the truths of the Scripture and the reality of the empty tomb, while the atheist bases his faith on the theory that there is nothing to come after death (i.e. Pascal's wager). When you said it is a mistake to call religious belief "knowledge", following your reasoning is it not also a mistake for the atheist to dogmatically characterize his unbelief as "knowledge"? Wouldn't "faith" be a better description of the atheist position as well? After all, just as the Christian has not been beyond the veil of death personally, neither has the atheist.

Presuming the burden of proof is on those who request objective evidence is an age old logical fallacy.

Using the English language, the word "exist" by definition, requires objective reality. Since faith can't exist with objective reality, it's physically impossible to say god exists, within the confines of the English language.

On the other hand, simply not having a belief does not require faith in anything. You merely believe what exists, it's objective reality anyone else can easily access through their 5 senses.

 

[PaulKersey]

Presuming the burden of proof is on those who request objective evidence is an age old logical fallacy.

Using the English language, the word "exist" by definition, requires objective reality. Since faith can't exist with objective reality, it's physically impossible to say god exists, within the confines of the English language.

On the other hand, simply not having a belief does not require faith in anything. You merely believe what exists, it's objective reality anyone else can easily access through their 5 senses.

Let me phrase my thought in a different way. I believe a person can be an honest agnostic and make the statement "I don't know if God exists." However, I don't think the atheist view carries the same validity because when a man declares "There is no God," he is not qualified to make such a statement. After all, we all see just a very small slice of what exists. To declare with accuracy that no God exists would require infinite knowledge of the entire universe on behalf of the one making the claim. By definition, the only person with sufficient knowledge to declare that such a being does not exist is God Himself.

I repeat my assertion it does take faith to be an atheist. In fact, Dr. Norman Geisler, a leading Christian philosopher, wrote a book on this subject some year ago entitled I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.

Regarding the 5 senses, you can't prove love or hate exists by the usage of only the 5 physical senses, but no honest man would deny their existence.

 

[Tombs]

Let me phrase my thought in a different way. I believe a person can be an honest agnostic and make the statement "I don't know if God exists." However, I don't think the atheist view carries the same validity because when a man declares "There is no God," he is not qualified to make such a statement. After all, we all see just a very small slice of what exists. To declare with accuracy that no God exists would require infinite knowledge of the entire universe on behalf of the one making the claim. By definition, the only person with sufficient knowledge to declare that such a being does not exist is God Himself.

I repeat my assertion it does take faith to be an atheist. In fact, Dr. Norman Geisler, a leading Christian philosopher, wrote a book on this subject some year ago entitled I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.

Regarding the 5 senses, you can't prove love or hate exists by the usage of only the 5 physical senses, but no honest man would deny their existence.

You're still committing the same logical fallacy...

Since there's no objective evidence for a god, it does not require faith to say a god does not exist until proven otherwise. Once objectively proven that a god exists, yes, then it would require faith to say a god does not exist.

You're making the assumption that someone is saying it's impossible for a god to exist, when no, they're stating what is currently objective reality.

 

[PaulF]

Let me phrase my thought in a different way. I believe a person can be an honest agnostic and make the statement "I don't know if God exists." However, I don't think the atheist view carries the same validity because when a man declares "There is no God," he is not qualified to make such a statement. After all, we all see just a very small slice of what exists. To declare with accuracy that no God exists would require infinite knowledge of the entire universe on behalf of the one making the claim. By definition, the only person with sufficient knowledge to declare that such a being does not exist is God Himself.

I repeat my assertion it does take faith to be an atheist. In fact, Dr. Norman Geisler, a leading Christian philosopher, wrote a book on this subject some year ago entitled I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.

Regarding the 5 senses, you can't prove love or hate exists by the usage of only the 5 physical senses, but no honest man would deny their existence.

Based on the evidence to which I have access I have no reason to believe that any gods exist. If I am exposed to evidence sufficiently supporting the existence of gods I would consider it, and likely change my stance. That isn't "faith"...that is reasonable consideration.

"Faith" is belief in a claim in the absence of sufficient evidence, or in the face of sufficient evidence in counter to that claim.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Here's a guy who explains the three phases of Jihad, using Muslim writings and history. He's a bit sarcastic, but his observations correlate with other commentaries that I've seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ERou_Q5l9Gw

Understand, BBI and any other Muslims on this forum, I DON'T HATE YOU. I don't hate your relatives, I don't hate your religion. But I can see with my own eyes what is happening both out in the world and here in America. And I don't want to see what has happened in the Middle East and elsewhere take hold here.

 

[steveh_131]

You have reached a point of faith, Steve.

No mortal can speak for the afterlife, if such a thing can be believed to exist at all.

We can choose to believe in "revealed truth", but it is a mistake to call it "knowledge"...it is faith. I have learned to be weary of anyone who claims to speak for gods...I have never met one that wasn't selling something for himself.

I was replying to someone I believed was a Christian. If he shares my worldview then he and I can have that discussion based upon the book that informs that worldview.

 

[steveh_131]

Based on the evidence to which I have access I have no reason to believe that any gods exist. If I am exposed to evidence sufficiently supporting the existence of gods I would consider it, and likely change my stance. That isn't "faith"...that is reasonable consideration.

"Faith" is belief in a claim in the absence of sufficient evidence, or in the face of sufficient evidence in counter to that claim.

I agree completely.

I have been exposed to enough evidence to convince me that there is a God and the Bible is his message to us.

Faith is something else.

 

[DragonGunner]

"Instead of looking past the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence."
Thomas Paine


[h=1]Hebrews 11King James Version (KJV)[/h]11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[7.62]

How long does it take a person to recite the Quran?

I enjoy audio books, an average novel is about 8 hours. Epics like Lonsome Dove and The Stand are over 40 hours.

I have personally never heard someone elite it straight through to know how long it takes. Every year during the month of Ramadan it is split into 30 parts and recited each night during prayer. It can last 1-2 hours a night. Now some of that time is additional prayer. Also it isn't just recited quickly. It's not "sang" I can't think of a word for it but it's not just read in monotone. Some people make it really enjoyable to hear.

 

[T.Lex]

You know, this thread - and others like it - remind me of an Irish blessing. It goes something like this:

For those that love us, may God bless them.
For those that do not love us, may God turn their hearts.
But if even He can't turn their hearts, may He turn their ankles,
that we might know them by their limping.



Sometimes, it is better to know where some people stand on certain things, even if it is uncomfortable.

 

[7.62]

You realize that no amount of social-justice-warrioring will:
1.) Give back 2,974 lives that were lost on 9/11/2001
2.) Reattach the heads of all those beheaded in the name of allah, in accordance with islamic faith and tradition
3.) End the islamic cultural practice of child abuse and rape (Don't believe me? Look up chai boys, and the soldiers who have had to face consequences for standing up to those child molesters.)
4.) End the mutilation, abuse, murder, rape, and degradation of women living under islamic rule

I don't care if a muslim refuses to follow their beliefs or not, a few minutes of searching through their book tells you everything you need to know about them, and perfectly explains the daily problems we see coming from them around the world.

If you can read that book and still chose to follow that faith, you are an extremist.

I'm sure some here think Saudi Arabia is a moderate nation. Meanwhile, they crucify someone for speaking out against the government when he was 17. Ali Mohammed al-Nimr faces execution in Saudi Arabia for taking part in protest | Daily Mail Online

I don't think you can find a more moderate site than this, and they're still trying to defend absolutely insane levels of barbarism: Frequently Asked Questions about Stoning | Violence is not our Culture

You say a few mins searching through the Quran will show that anyone that follows Islam is an extremist. I have read the book and did not get that message nor I'm I extreme. Could you please cite where I need to re-read to find that? I'm having trouble finding it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Atheism is not a system of beliefs, it is the rejection of one specific belief: that gods exist.

It is conceivable that one rejects gods, but still believes in an afterlife of some type, even though this isn't true for me, specifically. I just wanted to make that point before I continued.

Anyone who claims to know what happens to our conscienceness after corporeal death is venturing into matters of faith. We can measure what happens up to the point of death, when the brain stops functioning...if anything happens after that it is a matter of faith...atheist or pious. (I think I admitted to as much in my previous post, if not so elegantly...)

Paul, I would say that the latter point depends entirely upon whether you accept the accounts of Christ having appeared risen following his death. If you discount the accounts of relevant witnesses to the event or the likely Roman and Temple reactions in the event that a corpse could be presented, then, no there is not any evidence. On the other hand, if you accept what has been passed down from that time as truthful accounts of actual physical events, then you have evidence that there is indeed life after death.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

You say a few mins searching through the Quran will show that anyone that follows Islam is an extremist. I have read the book and did not get that message nor I'm I extreme. Could you please cite where I need to re-read to find that? I'm having trouble finding it.

I agree. And further down that logical road...


We say that guns don't kill people - PEOPLE kill people.

And we ALL get pissed when people blame guns.

Yet books and religions and don't kill people - right? PEOPLE kill people.
And are we choosing to blame the religion/ideology? Or the PERSON?

It is a double edged sword.

Worth thinking about.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I agree. And further down that logical road...


We say that guns don't kill people - PEOPLE kill people.

And we ALL get pissed when people blame guns.

Yet books and religions and don't kill people - right? PEOPLE kill people.
And are we choosing to blame the religion/ideology? Or the PERSON?

It is a double edged sword.

Worth thinking about.

I can see only one significant flaw here. Setting side for the moment the argument of what Islam does or does not require of its adherents, in the example of a gun, it is a strictly passive tool where, by contrast, a religious text gives instruction for the purpose of directing the thoughts and actions of its believers. This stands in contrast to the fact that none of my guns have ever made so much as a suggestion as to what I should or should not do.

From a different angle, it is technically correct that a person, not a book or ideology does the actual killing, but there is a difference between the influence of the book or ideology in persuading the killer that killing is right and proper as opposed to a strictly passive tool which does not insinuate itself into the decision-making process.

 

[1861navy]

The things that have been said in this thread, the way you all conversed, discussed, disagreed, found common points to which you can relate; highlights the best things of the membership and community here. I am not done reading this thread yet, however thus far I have learned A LOT about religion politics, cultures, ways of life that I previously did not know. Also there have been posts in this thread that brought tears to my eyes.

BBI - I have always enjoyed your posts, many times it truly has made me smile to see you so passionately speak for what you know to be good, for that which you love. I would personally not like to see you go. Since religion has been allowed on this forum you and many others have shared your beliefs, given great information and resources for those who are interested. To me that is a beautiful thing, to encourage knowledge, understanding, and tolerance of ones beliefs. I also can understand how you must feel tiresome from all the "mediating" so to speak.

I have nothing against most religions, I have even been friends with people who said they were satanic. I know its strange. In the end its about treating your fellow man right, being good to those you love, taking care of what's around you. In high school in my search for religion I went to churches, read religious texts, and conversed with people of various religions. I contemplated various forms of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, you name it I learned what I could as a teenager. As I grew I continued that search, I believe that search never ends for anyone. Not necessarily the search for religion, but the search for god, the search for oneness. To this day I love learning about religions as well as other cultures.

Through all of my searching I ended up where I am now. I claim no major religion but try to uphold the philosophy of Daoism. Many I know consider me a pagan, whatever that would mean. "earth worshipper" is what I usually get called sometimes its hippie, or tree hugger when people want to poke.
I try to get people to understand that because I give praise to the sun, moon, animals, plants, rocks, stars and much more doesn't mean I worship them. Though it usually doesn't make sense to them. I guess its hard for most to imagine giving thanks and praise to things they usually consider a nuisance, or barely notice. Its even harder to explain that I believe and feel there is no difference between my god and their god. There are times when religion is brought up with people I don't know I try to avoid the subject all together. So I can somewhat relate to how BBI feels tired of informing on the subject.

It seems to be at times that some are blinded by religion, others are guided, and some are distracted. It also seems to be a part of human nature at times to turn religion into a wheel for propaganda and destruction. Most religions, if not all, have had this happen to them and that is sad. Unfortunately today it is no different.

In the end I believe there is good and bad within all of us. The choice is up to an individual, sometimes they use religion to justify their choice but that doesn't make that religion the problem. Their choice is/was the problem.

 

[indiucky]

Paul, I would say that the latter point depends entirely upon whether you accept the accounts of Christ having appeared risen following his death. If you discount the accounts of relevant witnesses to the event or the likely Roman and Temple reactions in the event that a corpse could be presented, then, no there is not any evidence. On the other hand, if you accept what has been passed down from that time as truthful accounts of actual physical events, then you have evidence that there is indeed life after death.

I like history...There are roughly 32-34 accounts of Christ in the ancient world outside of scripture, spoken so matter of factly that it is plain to anyone who reads Greco/Roman Histories that these things happened and were recorded...The debate then wasn't "whether" these things happened but rather by what "means" these events happened.....We are left with few options...

1.) He was a sociopath schooled in illusions that would put Penn Gillette to shame...
2.) He was in league with Satan and through dark arts conjured illusions
3.) He was the greatest writer of all time, so much so that a version of Prodigal Son parable surfaces nearly every year in film and literature..
4.) Or He was exactly who He said He was....

My "faith" (based on evidence via written records from numerous sources, many having no "dog in this hunt" as it were) is that option 4 is the only logical conclusion I could come to...

Anything else kind of reminds me of 9/11 conspiracy theories...."No....What happened, you see, is he died and his followers stole his body...Right? Oh and then they kind of held it up and Peter moved Jesus's mouth from behind and he threw his voice so it appeared that Jesus spoke to about 500 people...Oh and then they took the body and waylaid Saul on the road to Damascus...See they had another dude slip some peyote in Saul's drink and when he started tripping Peter held up Jesus from behind like a Charlie McCarthy dummy and moving His mouth saying "Saul, Why do you persecute me???? Change your name to Paul and travel 20,000 miles of Roman road telling folks about me and my words...."

Now that, in my opinion, requires a leap of faith...

Or one can take the non historical, non evidence based approach and say "Ah..That's just a bunch of made up stories by simple desert dwellers..."