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

[IndyDave1776]

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..."

I (for once in a very great while) was trying to stay focused on one relatively small point!

 

[chipbennett]

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...)

Not that I intend to argue or even get into the details, but in order to be intellectually consistent, the belief that the supernatural (i.e. "gods") does not exist, leads to certain, inevitable, logical conclusions that would form a system of beliefs. There are superficial atheists (just as there are superficial theists) who are unwilling or unable to follow their thought processes to those conclusions.

I would also argue that those conclusions require just as much a degree of faith for atheists as they do for theists. To believe that life can spring from non-life - or that human consciousness and conscience can develop through natural processes - requires every bit as much faith as is required to believe that we live in a universe created by a supernatural being.

 

[indiucky]

Not that I intend to argue or even get into the details, but in order to be intellectually consistent, the belief that the supernatural (i.e. "gods") does not exist, leads to certain, inevitable, logical conclusions that would form a system of beliefs. There are superficial atheists (just as there are superficial theists) who are unwilling or unable to follow their thought processes to those conclusions.

I would also argue that those conclusions require just as much a degree of faith for atheists as they do for theists. To believe that life can spring from non-life - or that human consciousness and conscience can develop through natural processes - requires every bit as much faith as is required to believe that we live in a universe created by a supernatural being.

Check this guy out Chip....He is a professor of mathematics at Cambridge in England and handles this very well...In one debate he challenged Dawkins by asking whether he had faith in his wife...Dawkins kind of stammered and said "Well of course I do..." and Lennox said..."And by what scientific method did you come to this conclusion?" Dawkins saw where he was going, kind of blushed and just said "Well you got me there...After all, I do have to go home tonight you know.." and they both had a laugh about it...

[video=youtube;oVd635qVGGE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVd635qVGGE[/video]

 

[PaulF]

Not that I intend to argue or even get into the details, but in order to be intellectually consistent, the belief that the supernatural (i.e. "gods") does not exist, leads to certain, inevitable, logical conclusions that would form a system of beliefs. There are superficial atheists (just as there are superficial theists) who are unwilling or unable to follow their thought processes to those conclusions.

I would also argue that those conclusions require just as much a degree of faith for atheists as they do for theists. To believe that life can spring from non-life - or that human consciousness and conscience can develop through natural processes - requires every bit as much faith as is required to believe that we live in a universe created by a supernatural being.

You make your point very clearly, as always, and I think I understand what you are saying. I even agree with you...to a point.

My my understanding of the world does not include a supernatural element. While I am not concerned (in the least) with the origins of organic life, in order to be consistent with my worldview the origins of organic life would necessarily have to be due to some natural process, however unlikely or complex...but my worldview is allowed to have holes. I don't need to have all the answers..."I don't know" is perfectly acceptable. In short: I don't know how life began, and I don't really care. Life exists. I can measure and study that fact, and I don't need faith in gods...or anything else...to recognize this.

People who are way smarter than me have analysed the available evidence and come up with some reasonable scenarios for the origins of organic life on our planet. They have written these theories down and published them for other people, also much smarter than me, to scrutinize and test against the available evidence to see if they hold up. In this way the most supportable ideas receive the most scrutiny, and become more supportable still. This is the scientific method, and for discovering truly objective knowledge about our surroundings it is the best "compass for truth" that mankind has yet developed. This method does not ask for faith in results...it asks for verification.

Without the ability to verify, a theory is nothing more than a story. Without the ability to verify, a story can be exaggerated, or falsified. While ideas can exist completely within the human mind, facts cannot. Facts are not things that are known to exist, they are things that can be shown to exist. In other words, the scientific method forces the hand of the liar: "don't tell me, show me".

Gods may or may not be real. The most ardent believer, armed with testimony and fervor, is left ultimately impotent when rather simply challenged with: "Show me"...and that is the problem I have.

For thirty years I have looked for the answer to this question: In human history disparate groups have reached the very similar conclusions about a great many things: astronomy, geometry, agriculture, are technologies that were developed in separate parts of the world but found the same basic truths. The same should be true of an all-powerful eternal deity. Any number of groups, studying independently, should be able to reach the same conclusions about God when left to study the available evidence without interference, and those results should be consistent across time, since God doesn't change. Students in modern Japan should come to the same basic conclusions about God as students in ancient Mexico...but that isn't the case. People's views of "God" vary wildly from situation to situation, and change over generations.

This is not indicative of people chipping away at the core of a deep global truth, but of people crafting an ongoing narrative.

At the end of the day all of these stories of gods and devils, of ghosts and afterlives are just that...stories. For all of history men have been making up stories like these to entertain each other, or fool each other, or manipulate each other. If you want me to believe that your god is more than so much bluster, I will gladly follow along with you...but you are going to have to show me.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The amount of support I've been shown and the people who've reached out to me has made the burden I felt not feel much lighter, I can tell you that for sure. That said, it's made me look at how many hours I spend here and reevaluate if that time is worth it. Indiucky has strongly encouraged me to continue to reach out and try to make these connections and educate where I can. I'll meet in the middle. I will not neglect self improvement, and the time I spend here often comes out of my time to read, and that's a strong part of my identity and something I greatly enjoy. So, I will be here but, at least for now, in a reduced level of participation. Not because of the religious debate or due to any hard feelings, mind you, but because this has been a reminder of how finite I am and how much I want to do with the time I have.

So, other than responding directly I'm just going to address several points.

Yes, a list can be biased. If you got your understanding of US police forces from reading CopBlock, would you really have any understanding at all? Even if everything they listed was factually accurate, would you have anything like a complete picture? No, of course not. If you knew nothing about gun ownership, and all I presented to you was deaths from accidental discharges, would you have anything approaching an understanding of gun ownership? Of course not. That's so self evident I can't believe this is a question. You can know the numerator, but without knowing the denominator, you know nothing of value.

Yes, there are a lot of places where Islam exists that are in turmoil. Since nearly every nation has a Muslim population, seek and you'll find what you want. Laying that at the feet of Muslims is a bit unfair. Egypt has a population that's 20% Christian. US population has a population that's about 13% black. Do you think I could not make the case that whites cannot peacefully coexist with blacks if I presented only the information that made my point? The fact that afer centuries of Muslim majority rule there is 20% of the nation that's Christian doesn't answer the question all by itself?

Since the Middle East has a lot of emotional baggage attached to the US mind, why don't you study up a bit on the division of India into India/Pakistan/Bangladesh by the retreating British Empire? You know, the division that led to at least 3 wars, possibly 4 depending on how you count, largely along religious lines? The conflict that lead to a Hindu militant assassinating Ghandi? What was his beef? Not every fight between religions is about religions. The economics and the division of resources as the British divided things up have caused decades of conflict. There is a TON of atrocities committed by all sides in that mess. If you think only Muslims produce terrorists and think Hindus are peaceful, you may find those stereotypes severely challenged. It's a good place to start, as most Americans don't have an emotional attachment to either side and can be a bit more detached and open minded.

On Atheists, I don't think it's possible to be an atheist. You have to know what something is to disbelieve in it. You'd have to literally believe in nothing, not even your own existence, to truly be an atheist. With a bit of self reflection, I think what most atheists will find is they don't believe in concepts of God. There's probably no one here who truly believes Zeus literally exists as a distinct entity. There's probably no one here who truly believes in the Norse pantheon literally existing as distinct entities. We are all, therefore, atheists in that regard. There are versions of God we reject. Most of us probably have very long lists of concepts of God we do not truly believe in. But as I've yet to see anyone say they can define God, how can you not believe it something you can't define? If you don't even know what you're not believing in, are you really not believing in it?

Summary: Atheists reject specific notions of God. It is impossible to disbelieve in every possible iteration of God. To name something is not to define something.

To those who have expressed concerns about my afterlife, both in public and in private, I thank you for your concern. I've found in person this is sometimes sincere, sometimes a bit condescending, but generally well meant. If I have to believe Jesus is the literal son of God and was divine, then yes, I'll fail the entrance exam to Christian Heaven. I have trouble fathoming a God who so highly regards orthodoxy over orthopraxy, yet presents a finite being with a selection of religious faiths and traditions that is for our purposes infinite, as you could not learn them all in a lifetime of study, and then places such a value on choosing the only correct one is probably not a God I'd have gotten along with from the start. Then to tilt the scales so dramatically by means of place and time of birth, parentage, access to knowledge, etc? I truly and literally cannot believe in a God who would be so unjust. So, your path wouldn't work for me. I cannot find faith there. I know, I tried, and I felt like a miserable failure and that I could not find faith, I could not reconcile, and could not truly belong or to believe.

 

[chipbennett]

At the end of the day all of these stories of gods and devils, of ghosts and afterlives are just that...stories. For all of history men have been making up stories like these to entertain each other, or fool each other, or manipulate each other. If you want me to believe that your god is more than so much bluster, I will gladly follow along with you...but you are going to have to show me.

Interestingly, this is exactly what the God of the Bible tells followers to do: to be ambassadors of Christ - to reveal Christ's love to others through the way we live. Logic/argumentation won't do it for most; the Bible says that the wisdom of the Cross is foolishness to the world. Our calling is to show the world that the message of Christ is real, by demonstrating the difference that accepting Christ has made in our own lives.

Most of us fail, miserably, most of the time. It is only through God's grace that He can still use us, even though we fail most of the time.

 

[PaulF]

On Atheists, I don't think it's possible to be an atheist. You have to know what something is to disbelieve in it. You'd have to literally believe in nothing, not even your own existence, to truly be an atheist. With a bit of self reflection, I think what most atheists will find is they don't believe in concepts of God. There's probably no one here who truly believes Zeus literally exists as a distinct entity. There's probably no one here who truly believes in the Norse pantheon literally existing as distinct entities. We are all, therefore, atheists in that regard. There are versions of God we reject. Most of us probably have very long lists of concepts of God we do not truly believe in. But as I've yet to see anyone say they can define God, how can you not believe it something you can't define? If you don't even know what you're not believing in, are you really not believing in it?

Summary: Atheists reject specific notions of God. It is impossible to disbelieve in every possible iteration of God. To name something is not to define something.

Hmm.

Well, okay.

I don't believe in the God of Abraham. I don't believe in Allah. I don't believe in the concept that those names represent. I don't believe in the afterlife, or even the "soul", per se...beyond a synonym for "mind".

I don't believe in ghosts. I don't believe in a spiritual realm, at all. I think we exist in this body, in this time, and when our bodies die our minds die with them. I think this life is all we get, and we need to take that very seriously...and then a little less seriously.

But I still believe in god?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Hmm.

Well, okay.

I don't believe in the God of Abraham. I don't believe in Allah. I don't believe in the concept that those names represent. I don't believe in the afterlife, or even the "soul", per se...beyond a synonym for "mind".

I don't believe in ghosts. I don't believe in a spiritual realm, at all. I think we exist in this body, in this time, and when our bodies die our minds die with them. I think this life is all we get, and we need to take that very seriously...and then a little less seriously.

But I still believe in god?

PANTHEISM: Nature, universe, science and religion

There are many concepts of God as the universe, as the human collective capacity for good and love, etc. Nothing you just said violates what I said. You can certainty disbelieve in some concepts of God, we all do. Its impossible to disbelieve in all concepts of God and believe anything exists, even yourself.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Back to the original topic, the alleged "trouble with Islam" as a source of hate. I would like you to read an actual recruiting tool used by Islamist extremists after 9/11:

You drop bombs on my people knowing full well that the level of
‘collateral damage’ – we call them innocent Muslims – will far
exceed the damage to any ‘legitimate target’. For you killing our
children en masse – and you still call it ‘collateral damage’ – is an
unavoidable consequence of pursuing your policies in our lands.
To us they are simply children. Don’t you think we’ve been crying
too, like you are now, (after 9/11) for years? Do you think we felt no
pain as you raped and plundered our lands and bombed our cities?
Your arrogance is only compounded by your ignorance. Look to
Iraq. In order to remove Saddam Hussein after the Kuwait war, you
killed over half a million children. Because you could! And
because my people were too lost, too defeated to be able to stop
you. These are our children. We cry for them, even as you feel
absolutely nothing. What of Lesley Stahl’s question to (Bush’s)
Secretary of State Madaleine Albright?
“We have heard that over half a million children have died – I mean
that is more children than died at Hiroshima, and, you know, is the
price worth it?”
Albright’s callous reply is etched in our memories, staining our
innocence with her venom, “I think it is a very hard choice, but we
think the price is worth it.”
Is killing civilians justified only for your own foreign policy
interests? You claim that, unlike us, you do not target civilians,
that your intentions are noble, that you seek only humane
concerns. How many deaths of ‘untargeted’ civilians entitle us to
respond? Five, ten, a hundred, half a million? Are three thousand
deaths enough to make you feel the pain of each and every mother
you ‘untargeted’ with depleted uranium? If not, then know that our
intentions in bringing you death can also be noble, we too shroud
destruction in humane concerns. You do not have a monopoly in
reaping devastation off the back of good intentions. You can
support, fund and train dictators in our lands who have been
torturing our brothers and raping our sisters in their prisons for
decades, and yet you invade our countries claiming to bring
democracy? You cite international law at us, while you wilfully
ignore Israel’s occupation of Palestine as defined by the UN. We
will never forget your friendship with Mubarak and Assad, your
unconditional support for an occupying Israel, the way you used us
as Mujahideen in Afghanistan only to turn on us once you got what
you wanted.
We have come to know that no amount of civilised pleading, no
amount of appealing to your humanity, for your mercy, no amount
of playing by your rules in your game, will move you. You are
stupefied in ignorant bliss while we bleed and secrete pus from
every orifice. There is only one thing you people value and cherish,
and that is your own lives, your own happiness and your own
selfish oblivion. If inflicting on you even an atom’s weight of the
pain we suffer at your hands wakes from your stupor and forces
you to listen to our cries as we drown, then I am afraid we have
decided that, although it is ‘a very hard choice, we think the price is
worth it’.

The author of that has since rejected Extremism and has founded an organization dedicated to de-radicalizing and reaching out to disaffected Muslims prior to radicalization. His statement on his above writing today is:

“This was powerful stuff and it worked, but my polemic – a
reflection of my instinctive response after 9/11 – was only half the
truth. How easy it is for a victim to construct a narrative out of halftruths
and inspire thousands out of righteous indignation!” “If my
efforts can achieve only one thing, let them build an understanding
of the mindset that can make people so angry that they lose all
empathy for others. Let them humanise even those who
dehumanise others, so that the process of healing can begin. My
above polemic may have been uncomfortable reading for many of
you, especially for my friends who survived the 9/11 attacks, and
for that I am sorry. The reality is, and it will help us not to pretend
otherwise, that there are still many people out there who think this
way, whether we like it or not.”

That's one of the reasons I bristle at Kirk's simplistic views that Islam is the problem and if you can just redefine 'jihad' everything is all rainbows and puppies (the other being refusal to differentiate between extremists and the bulk of Islam). Does the above sound like a religious argument? No, most extremists actually have little understanding of the underlying religion other than the showy parts, the prayer and the beard and the avoidance of forbidden food, etc. It is a political argument using a warped sense of current events. You don't need any understanding of Islam to be appalled by dead children, and then painting the enemy as cold, calculating, and barely human. How do you counter this with "well, yeah, but jihad isn't violence!" It's not addressing the root issues. Those who have been saying "What are Muslims doing to let me know they disagree with terrorists" may see the logical counterargument, what outreach are you doing to Muslims to show you aren't the evil and heartless slayers of innocents you've been portrayed to be? Both sides are equally valid and equally ridiculous. You probably have more pressing matters than how the average Pakistani views you, like earning a living and spending time with your family and just generally going about your life....but so does the average Pakistani

It's more than a little ironic that both sides paint the other with such broad strokes when attempting to stoke hatred. It's much easier to hurt and kill someone you've dehumanized vs someone you know or identify with. A little outreach, and a little bit of seeking out all sides of the argument can go a long way.

If anyone is curious, the above quotes are from "Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism" by Maajid Nawaz. It's one of the best memoirs I've read since "Unbroken", and it's also a very interesting look into the world of recruitment and goals of the various Extremists groups...and their infighting, politics, etc. I also found it oddly comforting that there are a-holes who will tattle on their co-workers and suck up to the boss in order to move up within the organization, incompetent people who remain in position due to favoritism, ego based sabotage of the plans of others within the group, etc. among even violent extremist groups. Office politics, one of the truths across all ideologies and cultures....

 

[jamil]

On gods or no gods, the concept of supernatural serves as an answer to questions where we have no other answer. How did we get here? I don't know. I wasn't there when we arrived. I'm okay with that answer (not everyone is okay with it as it seemed to befuddle a Jehova's witness that came to my door). If I have to answer that question, I have to make assumptions along the most obvious dichotomy: natural or supernatural? And with either assumption, on some level, the assumption can be described as faith.

Both have problems. If natural, what natural phenomenon originated living organisms? Science only has theories. If supernatural, which story to believe? What power? Where did that power originate? Was that power a who or a what? How did it happen? If it was a "who" that created the world or universe, was it Ptah? Yaweh? Jamshid? Whichever, why that one? When the assumption is supernatural how do you choose which story to believe? Supernatural can allow anything really. What evidence is there for which story is right?

I have to agree with Paul, that I am quite satisfied saying I don't know, for sure. None of the people in this thread really knows how we got here or what happens when we die--faith isn't knowing, faith is believing. I wasn't there when Jesus rose from the dead and neither were you. We need to take other human beings' word that it happened. I wasn't there when the universe formed. I would have to take a scientist's word for how that might have happened.

And I guess that's why I call myself an agnostic. I'm not that interested in the question of origins that I need to delve into the details of all the competing ideas and choose which I want to believe. I tend to believe that the one that doesn't require supernatural causes is probably truest, even though there is much less known about that origin, than the one described in Genesis. Either way I do think it does take some amount of faith to believe either side of that dichotomy.

And if we must believe something about our origin, some level of faith will have to suffice. This is one reason why I think it's silly to ridicule people's faith.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I have to agree with Paul, that I am quite satisfied saying I don't know, for sure. None of the people in this thread really knows how we got here or what happens when we die--faith isn't knowing, faith is believing. .

BBI , sorry for the threadjack .

I'm going to preface my statement by saying that I'm a backslidden , **** poor example of what a christian man ought to be (which should explain my posts to other believers ) , but it doesn't change the fact that I am a believer in Jesus Christ and what the King James tells us about Christianity .

The above quoted in bold has been said a few times in this and other threads and bugs me very much so I'll lay this out as simply as I can .

There are plenty of us that know EXACTLY what happens when we die and EXACTLY how we got here !

How do we know ? A book written so many years ago tells us so . Just that simple .

How can we believe it ? Knowledge and experience .

How do we get the knowledge ? You read the book ( KJV ) and go to church to "fellowship" with others to learn many concepts some of which are " meat and milk " .

A person who is "new " to studying " the word / bible " is considered spiritually ignorant or as a baby and can't handle / understand the deeper concepts / meanings , therefore they must have milk , or the "easy" stuff .

Once a person's understanding grows in the word they are no longer considered "babies " and can handle the deeper meanings / meat .

Once you have the knowledge and experience , you really can see the works of good and evil ALL around us .

However , most folks are chuckleheads and want pillars of smoke and burning bushes as they require " signs " before they'll believe anything .

Those same people believe in the wind . They've never seen the wind but have seen the effects of it .

Probably believe the sun will rise tomorrow although there's no guarantee they'll see it cause the promise of tomorrow is given to no man .

Once a person has the knowledge and experience , they know what to look for and believe me , good and evil really are all around us at all times .

Gone are the days of signs and wonders because we couldn't keep the law , even with those things .

God seen that we were chuckleheads ( because of our free will ) and couldn't keep a few, simple laws so he sent his only son Jesus , not to condemn but to save the world . That whoever shall believe in Him ( Jesus ) shall have everlasting life .

Back in 97 , a few years out of the Army , I was in a bad / dark place mentally and was contemplating suicide .

On the day " of ", I wasn't yet a believer and challenged God to revel himself to me , otherwise " forgive me for here I come " .

At that moment , just like a warm blanket falling over me I felt the " peace beyond understanding " ( a meat concept " , which led to me getting saved and learning more about " the word " , Christianity and being a Christian .

Fast forward to summer of 2000 , I was blessed enough to be with my father as he was dying .

Just before he exhaled his last breath , he looked up at the ceiling , got a big smile on his face and motioned for someone to come down to him .

A handful of places ( that I know of ) in the bible it tells us plainly that angels are sent to escort us to heaven , if that's where we're going .

I tell you guys these things so that hopefully you'll understand that many of us have real experience with faith and the spirit world as tangible as your houses , cars etc .

So just because you don't understand what we do , please stop telling us we don't know what we're talking about .

After the new testament / Jesus Christ , it's no longer about " signs and wonders " ( even though they STILL happen ) , it's about a personal relationship with God , not the John Hagee's or Creflo Dollar's of the world .

 

[IndyDave1776]

BBI , sorry for the threadjack .

I'm going to preface my statement by saying that I'm a backslidden , **** poor example of what a christian man ought to be (which should explain my posts to other believers ) , but it doesn't change the fact that I am a believer in Jesus Christ and what the King James tells us about Christianity .

Don't feel alone in this!

The above quoted in bold has been said a few times in this and other threads and bugs me very much so I'll lay this out as simply as I can .

One of the more challenging aspects of faith is that you don't see the evidence, or recognize it as such, until after making the decision to trust God by virtue of His being God, as opposed to empirical observation.

Fast forward to summer of 2000 , I was blessed enough to be with my father as he was dying .

Just before he exhaled his last breath , he looked up at the ceiling , got a big smile on his face and motioned for someone to come down to him .

My mom suddenly dropped of a heart attack a few days before I joined INGO. As a matter of fact, I dropped in at the local Gander Mountain trying to get away for a few minutes during the week she was comatose when I met a member who steered me this way. Back to the point, while she was in the hospital, a number of friends gathered and on Sunday, for whatever reason, they left the brain scan machine running all day where previously they had done their test, packed it up, and took it with them. The display was largely broken fragmented little lines with one critical exception. Any time anyone was praying, reading scripture, singing, or otherwise worshiping, she would show approximately normal brain activity, but would not respond to any other conversation or outside stimulus.

A handful of places ( that I know of ) in the bible it tells us plainly that angels are sent to escort us to heaven , if that's where we're going .

On the contrary, several years ago, a friend of my mom's lost her son, who had never made any profession of faith. He died screaming that the 'aliens' were coming to get him.

 

[Jludo]

That letter Bin Laden penned about 911 BBI posted is really worth a read. The Arab world had some legitimate grievances and it meshed those with a religion to create a powerful recruitment narrative. The best lies have an element of truth and we aren't doing ourselves any favors if we pretend Islam is simply a religion of jihad and that's the only reason Islamic terrorism exists.
I'd also note recognizing we had made/were making mistakes that helped exacerbate the problem does not mean we deserved 9 11 or terrorism against civilians is ever justified.

 

[foszoe]

I do get a chuckle reading athiests saying they are ok with not knowing...excepting deity when it's not ok.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

That letter Bin Laden penned about 911 BBI posted is really worth a read. The Arab world had some legitimate grievances and it meshed those with a religion to create a powerful recruitment narrative. The best lies have an element of truth and we aren't doing ourselves any favors if we pretend Islam is simply a religion of jihad and that's the only reason Islamic terrorism exists.
I'd also note recognizing we had made/were making mistakes that helped exacerbate the problem does not mean we deserved 9 11 or terrorism against civilians is ever justified.

Not from Bin Laden.

The author of that has since rejected Extremism and has founded an organization dedicated to de-radicalizing and reaching out to disaffected Muslims prior to radicalization.

The second part of your statement also goes back to a tool the author of that used to convince a bomb maker that British civilians were not an allowed target, even if he continued his war. He showed him pictures of mass protests of the Iraq War that took place in London and explained that even in a democracy, the government's decision is not simply a referendum of the people. He then compared that to Turkey where there was very little opposition to the Iraqi war. (The Iraqi War was a prime motivator for the bomb maker, I suppose I should add). He asked the bomb maker if he could attack Turkish civilians. The bomb maker said no, they were Muslim. The author then pointed out that he was attacking people for their ideology, which may not even really be that individual's idealogy, which is what he was accusing his enemy of doing, and what he was really doing was politically terrorism. The bomb maker agreed, and stated that targeting British civilians was in conflict with Islam. Now, that's one conversation that happened in one day. I'm sure many picked up on that he didn't renounce his war, nor did he eliminate British government targets as valid...but baby steps. You don't overthrow someone's entire ideology in a day.

I'm going from memory, so I may leave a step out, but his process of decradicalization is a logical process, as in giving someone just enough rope to hang themselves with in the political arena and an introduction to the truth of Islam, not the warped ISIS/etc. version of Islam. First you bring down their faith in individuals who are instrumental in their movement (pointing out hypocrisy and failings, always truthfully), then question the tactics (you are forbidden to kill innocents, and even if it's true the other side does something does not mean it becomes ok in the eyes of God for you to do it in retribution), then work your way up to the overall ideology. He states you have to destroy before you can build, you must pick apart their prejudices so that they recognize them for what they are, you must reframe the argument, and only then once they truly believe their previous understanding was wrong can you replace it with something else.

People like Trump and those who profit from fear simply make this harder. People who say "nuke them all" or continue to lump Islam in with the political terrorists using the name of Islam simply make this harder. Again, the ironic thing is both the extremists and those who would "nuke them all" are promoting the same message. That it's a clash of cultures and there's no way we can live together...although we've done it remarkably well quite often.

 

[DragonGunner]

Not to thread jack but this was posted on FB….true or false?

 

[jamil]

The above quoted in bold has been said a few times in this and other threads and bugs me very much so I'll lay this out as simply as I can .

There are plenty of us that know EXACTLY what happens when we die and EXACTLY how we got here !

How do we know ? A book written so many years ago tells us so . Just that simple .

You know what is written in a book by men. You trust that your book is true because of inspirational experiences. People decide for themselves what they believe and what they reject for various reasons. But belief is different from knowledge. You can have knowledge of the book and believe what it says, but that you believe the words of those men are true, doesn't prove to me that they are true. You weren't there when God said let there be light. You weren't there when Jesus arose from the dead. You believe those things because of inspiration and not because you have first hand experience. Your inspiration is first hand experience, but the things that you believe because of it isn't.

I do get a chuckle reading athiests saying they are ok with not knowing...excepting deity when it's not ok.

Sure, I'm okay with not knowing, because as of now, I can't know to the extent that I require to believe something as factual. Faith is not my standard of knowing.

What I'm not okay with is ridiculing other people or telling them that their faith based belief is wrong.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Not to thread jack but this was posted on FB….true or false?

Probably. Note that Israeli =/= Jew. Might be enlightening to see the travel restrictions on Palestinians as well.

 

[BugI02]

You know what is written in a book by men. You trust that your book is true because of inspirational experiences. People decide for themselves what they believe and what they reject for various reasons. But belief is different from knowledge. You can have knowledge of the book and believe what it says, but that you believe the words of those men are true, doesn't prove to me that they are true. You weren't there when God said let there be light. You weren't there when Jesus arose from the dead. You believe those things because of inspiration and not because you have first hand experience. Your inspiration is first hand experience, but the things that you believe because of it isn't.



Sure, I'm okay with not knowing, because as of now, I can't know to the extent that I require to believe something as factual. Faith is not my standard of knowing.

What I'm not okay with is ridiculing other people or telling them that their faith based belief is wrong.

I can't help but think Faith and Knowledge are two sides to the same coin. In my minds eye I see a large gold coin, say $20 gold piece size. One one side is inscribed 'I believe I know' and on the other 'I know I believe'.

 

[jamil]

I can't help but think Faith and Knowledge are two sides to the same coin. In my minds eye I see a large gold coin, say $20 gold piece size. One one side is inscribed 'I believe I know' and on the other 'I know I believe'.

I can read books about the Grand Canyon and see pictures of it, and it doesn't matter how much I know I believe I know what it's like to acually see it with my own eyes. I don't really know until I know.