France under attack by Islamists (including Erdogan)

The Old Testament is part of Christianity. I don't think you can just view it as New Testament vs Quran.

 

I really don't think there's anything inherently Islamic about encouraging people to be civil with one another as a means to improve social cohesion. If moderate Muslims agree with that, then that derives from them being moderate, not Muslim.

 

Go to any Church, Synagoge, Temple, or Mosque in the world and try to convince them that their ancient philosophy doesn't advance humanity forward.

You can't get people to give up religion because being religious is probably genetically evolved into us as a coping mechanism to dealing with our mortality.

 

only an advanced race can do that to humans. one they come and tell us we're a bunch of apes that they crossbred while they've been traveling through space for centuries, then will they change our minds.

 

Not sure I follow, how does me potentially calling out some violent aspects that terrorists use translate to "attacking what you think is fundamental to their religion"?

I think the main issue is terrorism and violence, it's not hard to call out the behaviour of women and I know many that treat them well.
And I really don't see how going from women to terrorism is an easier transition when dealing with incredibly defensive people.

There's a reason they are radical and I don't have even the tiniest disillusion of the majority of them wanting to change.

Judging by your replies it seems you think I'm talking to Muslims in the same way I do here or voice harsh opinions loosely, I have long given up on convincing any radical person, no matter what their belief is, of changing their views because I've spent way too much time on that in past years.

In my experience, it's practically almost impossible to have sensible discussions with radical minds and changing their views, no matter if they are religious, right-wing, left-wing or whatever. It almost always ends in twisting words, lies, defensive behaviour and a predictable bullsh** bingo where every talk follows the same pattern.

 

I think calling out violent acts is important. Portraying those acts as something that is fundamental to their religion, which I thought you were doing, is counter-productive.

And there are many Muslims who profess to be against terrorism and violence. Again, rather than affirming that terrorism and violence is what Islam itself demands of them, the goal should be to convince them of the exact opposite.

It's a difficult task. The US has its own problems getting people on opposite ideological divides to communicate with each other, but it's not like the problem you are facing.

 

Disagree, the goal should be for them to acknowledge that terrorisms aren't perverting or misinterpreting Islam and that you can't just hide by cherry picking select Quran verses to act like there's no inherent issue.

They don't need to denounce the entire religion or demonize it, but not acknowledging these violent passages is exactly what lead us into this endless cycle of new generations of terrorists doing jihad based on what they read in the book and learn in Mosques.

Saying that terrorists aren't Muslims and then going back to everyday business leads to essentially zero change.

But like I said, the change needs to come from within and I am not engaging in any debates with religious people or political radicalists anymore, so all you see here is me thinking of potential solutions, it's not how I would address Muslims or any religious follower.

It should be obvious by now that going soft on Islam and followers hasn't proven productive, so the status quo isn't acceptable.
But practically I think words alone won't change anything and the rationalist in me thinks there'll never be a positive development in the next decades, so at this point it's just a theoretical issue to me.

 

The passages can be acknowledged, and I think you are right that it's important not to just skip over them as I suggested earlier. But then, the solution is to convince them that those passages mean something different than requiring that they go out and attack/murder people in the name of their religion. What other option is there? You say there's no need to denounce the entire religion, but if you're asking them to throw away their Quran then that's exactly what you are doing. Or if you are asking them to tear away certain pages, then that's cherry picking which you also say is not the right solution.

The book has to be preserved, but it has to be understood in a different way. That's part of the solution.

There are also political situations that engender division and violence, though many people are loathe to acknowledge this. If those aren't addressed, people will gravitate back to interpretations of their scripture that allow them to act violently. That's human psychology. The violent impulse is triggered for a variety of reasons, and the rationalization follows using whatever believe system is available to them. Islamic scripture is particularly well suited for such rationalization, unfortunately.

 

I'm surprised you don't understand how it is counter-productive to affirm that one's holy scriptures do in fact require that they commit terrorist actions, if your goal is to reduce terrorism. But they themselves believe this is hardly a defense of that position. That they believe it is the problem, and the solution is to convince them not to believe this (that their holy book demands they commit terrorist acts). You are not going to convince them to throw away their holy book.

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/vienna-terrorist-likely-acted-alone-fooled-de-radicalization-program/

Deradicalization programs are allegedly easy to fool.....

Also a news source interviewed his former defense lawyer who said he was a youth soccer player and he was 'recruited' by a teammate during a sports camp.

His family was a normal middle class family without radical background.

Got his AK 47 and plenty of ammunition in Slovakia.

 

And they will become our new gods....or slaves


That video of the alien ship rising out of the clouds really affected you huh?

 

We're agreed on this.

OK, fine.

I don't think I've ever denied or danced around the fact that a disturbing number of Muslims have beliefs that are contrary to my views on basic human rights, which are generally Western/Englightenment-based (same as yours, I guess).

I've seen this graphic, and I believe I've even posted it on here before to point out the disturbingly high number of Muslims who support terrorism in the name of Islam. What I'm drawing on is the Never column. Those aren't insignificant numbers. In a world of nearly 2 billion Muslims, it would appear that there are about 1 billion of them that think suicide bombing attacks against civilians are "Never" justified for defending Islam. The goal should be to push people on the other side to agree with them, not to put forward arguments that those 1 billion Muslims are actually wrong to think as they do according to their own scriptures. I would ask those 1 billion people: how religious are they, and how they would respond to Muslims who think their Muslim faith justifies terror attacks. Their views on this matter are far more important than what we think.

 

Religion - Man....

The Quran is so poorly written and full of it.

I mean does anyone actually think God's word would change as Mohammed's status as a human grows in stature?

What about the Satanic verses? Ooops..that was Satan.

I mean - Religion is the worst thing to happen to humanity EVER.

DD

 

Do we know the author of the Quran or was it anon?

 

Alright. That's a good note to end this conversation on. Mostly agreement, slight disagreement. Glad we eventually got there.

 

That's a good one, there's also this one:



Maybe they are the ones making people vote for Trump