Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

[luutzu]

Do you agree that the above rationalisations are indicative of mental illness ?

On the same level as someone who look at the same death and destruction but think that whether it's good or bad depends on who did it.

If "our" side does it, it's obviously is good. If "they" did it, obviously bad and religious based.

 

[Value Collector]

Do you agree that the above rationalisations are indicative of mental illness ?

It can be, or it can just be religion if you have be taught from a young age that that is how the world works.

It's not mental illness that a child believes in Santa or the tooth fairy, they believe it because thats what they are told, and then they are convinced by phony evidence and logical fallacies , I put Jesus and Allah in the same category.

society is filled with people that believe all sorts of "Woo", because either they have been raised to believe it, or become convinced of it through logical fallacies some how.

 

[SirRumpole]

society is filled with people that believe all sorts of "Woo", because either they have been raised to believe it, or become convinced of it through logical fallacies some how.

Sure, but if their false beliefs motivate them to commit violent acts then it becomes a matter of mental illness imo.

It's a form that can't be cured by drugs, but some some of "readjustment" could work. It's up to the religious hierarchy not to infect people with hatred and it's up to secular society to make sure that happens.

 

[Value Collector]

Sure, but if their false beliefs motivate them to commit violent acts then it becomes a matter of mental illness imo.
.

No, beliefs inform actions, simply having an incorrect belief is not mental illness.

There is no difference between a person who is inspired by religion to do something good like feed the homeless and someone who is inspired to do something bad like bomb an abortion clinic.

when dealing with religion you will get a range of results, you can't just say that the people doing the things you consider good are fine while the things you consider bad is caused by mental illness.

If you want religion in society you have to accept both outcomes, because as long as you are pushing faith and religious texts as good things, you will have a certain percentage take things literally and do bad things.

 

[SirRumpole]

There is no difference between a person who is inspired by religion to do something good like feed the homeless and someone who is inspired to do something bad like bomb an abortion clinic.

No I don't agree with that. There is good and evil in religion and they can be separated by careful editing.

 

[Value Collector]

No I don't agree with that. There is good and evil in religion and they can be separated by careful editing.

The tenants that you say are evil, and you say you can edit out, were written by people who thought they were good, and later complied and included in the book by people who also thought they were good.

The religions can't even decide on whether drinking alcohol or eating pig is good or evil.

Were the nuclear bombs in Japan good or evil, that's a very big debate, not even rational honest people can decide.

 

[Value Collector]

No I don't agree with that. There is good and evil in religion and they can be separated by careful editing.

Try using your logic to decide which are the good bits when your belief is that the religious text is from a god and can't be wrong.

Check out this guy, there are plenty like him.

 

[Tisme]

For sure.

How many other religion could conquer entire continents and either send all them natives to meet their makers or keep them alive to be enslaved but will definitely extract all their resources. Then turn around and managed to convinced themselves that ehhh... we mean well, right? I mean, look at those savages. What can we do but what we've done.

I mean, even Genghis Khan couldn't make stuff like that up and delivery it with a straight face. He'd have to tell the natives he slaughtered that he's their god's punishment for them being naughty.

That's weak Temujin. Grow a pair and tells them that it's their fault and you're here to save them.

That's the spirit.

 

[SirRumpole]

Try using your logic to decide which are the good bits when your belief is that the religious text is from a god and can't be wrong.

Check out this guy, there are plenty like him.

Yes, but I've also had contact with committed Christians who reject those parts of the Bible that don't fit with scientific facts and instead regard those parts as myths or assumptions made by people who had insufficient evidence at the time.

This guy seems to have a balanced view when it comes to science and the Bible.

https://theway21stcentury.wordpress...imate-change-that-all-christians-should-know/

 

[luutzu]

The tenants that you say are evil, and you say you can edit out, were written by people who thought they were good, and later complied and included in the book by people who also thought they were good.

The religions can't even decide on whether drinking alcohol or eating pig is good or evil.

Were the nuclear bombs in Japan good or evil, that's a very big debate, not even rational honest people can decide.

I consider myself honest and rational, and I say it's freaking evil.

But... but... No!

You don't go and literally nuke any place, particularly one with hundreds of thousands of civilians; do it twice; then find some justification.

I know the history and the context; I know what Imperial Japan did. Does our enemy's evils make our evil justifiable? That's emotion and bias talking if you think it's somewhat justifiable.

Even McNamara confessed that for the things "we" have done, all senior command of the Allied will have been hung for war crimes if they lost the war. And that's no joke either.

----

It's more honest, and somewhat acceptable, to just admit that nuking two separate civilian cities, using two different type of bombs... it was an act of evil but it has to be done because we've spent billions on the dam thing and this is the perfect opportunity to see how it work and to also warn Joe Stalin to not screw around with us when we divvy up the world.

That and the world hate the Japs so who's the protest? Hippies? Lord freaking Bertrand Russell? And who's going to sue us? We own the world and can do as we please.

They don't put it that way, but that's how the rationale goes down. All else are public relations to justify mass murder.

----

Yes, I know. There are movies where the US troops were butchered as they hop from island to island... then when they got to, I think it was Okinawa, some US admiral saw the deaths of his troops, sigh, almost weep, and thought that this have to stop or else we'd have to go and kill every single one of the Japanese civilian and have our own troops killed too.

First, you don't have to fight street by street, island by island for Japan to surrender. Japan was finished at that point. Just let your own troops relaxed, stationed a few miles off and wait them out.

Uncle Joe was still on friendly terms and is sending his troops East to pick up colonies.

That and Japan was never a real threat to the US anyway, they weren't taken that seriously even at Pearl Harbour.

Remember that Japan strike Pearl Harbour first. But the US start sending its troops into Europe to contain Hitler before they really get round to tackling Japan.

So by the time the nukes were about to drop, Japan was totally decimated. No navy, no airforce, its seas were blockaded, nothing gets in or out without the US saying so.

So to say that we have to nuke them because they're never going to give up... that's misleading. I mean, it's not like Japan was Saddam and was about to send us a mushroom cloud so we have to nuke them first.

 

[luutzu]

Another fact to show that that nukes were just to sow terror and collect scientific data:

The second nuke was meant for another city, Yokohama from memory. It was too cloudy there so intead of turning back and wait for a clear day where they can justify hitting the military industrial centres, they were ordered to a nearby city and unload.

 

[Value Collector]

Yes, but I've also had contact with committed Christians who reject those parts of the Bible that don't fit with scientific facts and instead regard those parts as myths or assumptions made by people who had insufficient evidence at the time.

This guy seems to have a balanced view when it comes to science and the Bible.

https://theway21stcentury.wordpress...imate-change-that-all-christians-should-know/

That's exactly my point as to why you can't paint all religious people with the same brush.

You seem happy to accept that not all Christians are crazy fundamentalists that take the texts litererally, but you don't seem to want to give Muslims that same respect.

I have never claimed everyone that reads the texts will accept it as truth, just that are certain percentage will, hence why I say religion is silly.

 

[Value Collector]

I consider myself honest and rational, and I say it's freaking evil.

But... but... No!

You don't go and literally nuke any place, particularly one with hundreds of thousands of civilians; do it twice; then find some justification.

I know the history and the context; I know what Imperial Japan did. Does our enemy's evils make our evil justifiable? That's emotion and bias talking if you think it's somewhat justifiable.

Even McNamara confessed that for the things "we" have done, all senior command of the Allied will have been hung for war crimes if they lost the war. And that's no joke either.

----

It's more honest, and somewhat acceptable, to just admit that nuking two separate civilian cities, using two different type of bombs... it was an act of evil but it has to be done because we've spent billions on the dam thing and this is the perfect opportunity to see how it work and to also warn Joe Stalin to not screw around with us when we divvy up the world.

That and the world hate the Japs so who's the protest? Hippies? Lord freaking Bertrand Russell? And who's going to sue us? We own the world and can do as we please.

They don't put it that way, but that's how the rationale goes down. All else are public relations to justify mass murder.

----

Yes, I know. There are movies where the US troops were butchered as they hop from island to island... then when they got to, I think it was Okinawa, some US admiral saw the deaths of his troops, sigh, almost weep, and thought that this have to stop or else we'd have to go and kill every single one of the Japanese civilian and have our own troops killed too.

First, you don't have to fight street by street, island by island for Japan to surrender. Japan was finished at that point. Just let your own troops relaxed, stationed a few miles off and wait them out.

Uncle Joe was still on friendly terms and is sending his troops East to pick up colonies.

That and Japan was never a real threat to the US anyway, they weren't taken that seriously even at Pearl Harbour.

Remember that Japan strike Pearl Harbour first. But the US start sending its troops into Europe to contain Hitler before they really get round to tackling Japan.

So by the time the nukes were about to drop, Japan was totally decimated. No navy, no airforce, its seas were blockaded, nothing gets in or out without the US saying so.

So to say that we have to nuke them because they're never going to give up... that's misleading. I mean, it's not like Japan was Saddam and was about to send us a mushroom cloud so we have to nuke them first.

I don't think it is as simple as that.

The nuclear bombs ended the war almost instantly, without them it would have been a very drawn out process, that also killed thousands more innocent people, either way it was a **** sandwich, the allies chose to make Japan eat it.

Death and suffering etc were completely unavoidable at that stage, no matter what innocent people were going to get killed.

 

[SirRumpole]

That's exactly my point as to why you can't paint all religious people with the same brush.

You seem happy to accept that not all Christians are crazy fundamentalists that take the texts litererally, but you don't seem to want to give Muslims that same respect.

I have never claimed everyone that reads the texts will accept it as truth, just that are certain percentage will, hence why I say religion is silly.

Like their religion or not, Christianity is less subject to corruption than is Islam. The New Testament moderates the Old, there is no moderation in Islam. Muhammad became more violent as his religion caught on and the Islamists say that his later more violent writings represent the "true" Islam.

As I have said many times, but you fail to accept, Islam wants to be the government and have religious law be the law of the land. You can see this even in so called moderate Islamic countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. Islam is a creeping sickness and even parts of Britain want Sharia Law introduced as part of the law of the land. That will happen here if Islam is allowed to grow too large. The only way to stop it is to restrict the number of Muslim immigrants who are the carriers of the disease.

You look at individuals, I look at the bigger picture. Islam is like Nazism. It appeals to so called "downtrodden" people to rise up against their perceived foe. For the Nazis, the foe were the Jews and eventually everyone who was non Arayan. For Muslims the foe is now everyone who is non Muslim. They will work within the culture of the land while their numbers are small, but once they get big enough they will start demanding their own ways. You only need to look at how barbaric Islamic countries are to know what is in store for us if this disease takes over here.

 

[dutchie]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...mage-gallery/ee8a4ef1032a9da5a37c87ecb7f34c5c

Stupid Multiculturalism.

 

[SirRumpole]

Copied from the Q&A thread (thanks Bellenuit)

Ex Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali speaks on Sharia Law.

http://www.theahafoundation.org/author/ahafoundation/

 

[luutzu]

I don't think it is as simple as that.

The nuclear bombs ended the war almost instantly, without them it would have been a very drawn out process, that also killed thousands more innocent people, either way it was a **** sandwich, the allies chose to make Japan eat it.

Death and suffering etc were completely unavoidable at that stage, no matter what innocent people were going to get killed.

As explained in the original post, the nukes were unnecessary. It was not the nuke that forces Japan to surrender, it was Stalin and the Soviets coming East.

Most of Japan's cities were pretty much completely destroyed from allied raids anyway. So dropping a couple of new sort of weapons to take out a city each isn't going to convince the warmongers in Tokyo that their people are dying so they better surrender.

They surrender because once Stalin start into the game, he'll want half of Japan just like he wanted half of Germany. Russia and Japan are still disputing a couple of small islands up North. If Stalin were given much more time, one or two major island will be Russians today.

Since the allied completely surrounds Japan, how will it survive or fight back anyway?

So all the noble, saving lives - both American and Japanese - the lesser of two evils... those are for domestic consumption dude.

And even if all of those noble intent were all true, we cannot use the same line of reasoning to justify war and nuclear holocaust.

Let's take Beijing or Moscow... would it be "reasonable" for either of them to drop a nuke or two on anyone else's country? Could they do it for moral reason like they wanted to take over that country but decided it's a lot more humane, relatively, that their troops don't like and "only" one city, or two or three, of their victims need to die. The rest of the country will be in tact.

That's not an acceptable reason is it?

 

[luutzu]

Copied from the Q&A thread (thanks Bellenuit)

Ex Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali speaks on Sharia Law.

http://www.theahafoundation.org/author/ahafoundation/

Yup. those who are critical of Islam and Muslims are 100% right.

The other Muslims who eloquently say that Islam isn't barbaric... hundreds of millions of them... na, they have no idea how evil their religion is.

 

[SirRumpole]

Yup. those who are critical of Islam and Muslims are 100% right.

The other Muslims who eloquently say that Islam isn't barbaric... hundreds of millions of them... na, they have no idea how evil their religion is.

They possibly have an idea how evil their religion is, they just don't want to admit it.

The Charlie Hebdo massacre was justified ?

 

[luutzu]

Like their religion or not, Christianity is less subject to corruption than is Islam. The New Testament moderates the Old, there is no moderation in Islam. Muhammad became more violent as his religion caught on and the Islamists say that his later more violent writings represent the "true" Islam.

As I have said many times, but you fail to accept, Islam wants to be the government and have religious law be the law of the land. You can see this even in so called moderate Islamic countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. Islam is a creeping sickness and even parts of Britain want Sharia Law introduced as part of the law of the land. That will happen here if Islam is allowed to grow too large. The only way to stop it is to restrict the number of Muslim immigrants who are the carriers of the disease.

You look at individuals, I look at the bigger picture. Islam is like Nazism. It appeals to so called "downtrodden" people to rise up against their perceived foe. For the Nazis, the foe were the Jews and eventually everyone who was non Arayan. For Muslims the foe is now everyone who is non Muslim. They will work within the culture of the land while their numbers are small, but once they get big enough they will start demanding their own ways. You only need to look at how barbaric Islamic countries are to know what is in store for us if this disease takes over here.

Wow. Just wow!