Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

...in your home country?

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the mosques...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Would you support the forced closure of all mosques in your home country?

Yes
10
10%
No
84
88%
Undecided
2
2%
 
Total votes : 96

Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#621  Postby Sendraks » Jul 15, 2015 11:07 am

Peter Brown wrote:IT IS A ISLAM SECTION NOT A ALL RELIGION SUB SECTION


This isn't an argument Peter. This is just you clearly and loudly stating your unwillingness to engage with the points raised.
This sub forum isn't the "make shit up about islam" forum or "say whatever you like about islam" forum.

Peter Brown wrote:But I basically disagree with the premice all religions are the same, that really is a false claim which I've seen used to excuse a religion doing bad shit with the smoke screen of all are the same.


Again, a strawman from you.
No one is saying that islam is "excused" because all other religions are bad. This has been said enough times now, that it is impossible for me to believe that you are not simply lying when you say this. From now on, when you make this claim or a similar claim, I'm going to say "stop lying." It'll save time.

All religions are bad.
The problems with islam are not unique to islam.
The problem is extremist behaviour, which is also not unique to islam.

Do you want to discuss how to tackle Islamic extremism or do you just want to air your obvious biases in respect of that religion?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15151
Age: 103
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#622  Postby Sendraks » Jul 15, 2015 11:09 am

Peter Brown wrote:here we go again, the book say a fix statement, and you say its a no true Scotsman


You don't know what "no true Scotsman" is, do you?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15151
Age: 103
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#623  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 15, 2015 11:13 am

Peter Brown wrote:
Pub; they close the violent pubs you know, mine was closed because the landlord was waving a shotgun at the mods who invaded one night. so funny.


Oh, they only close the violent ones, do they Peter? I wonder why that is.... do you think it's because it would be unreasonable to close all pubs due to the violence of a few?


Peter Brown wrote:They have bouncers on every town pubs door now; I wonder how Muslims would react to bouncers on Mosque doors? The Synagogues and schools have the Police to prevent the Jews being mugged. Can’t be right.


Once again, what an odd stream of consciousness.

They don't, actually, have bouncers on 'every town pub doors now' - that's simply untrue.

How would Muslims react to bouncers on mosque doors? Why would they need to? Are people murdering each other inside mosques?

It's not only the synagogues and schools which have the police preventing Jews being mugged, it's all of society having the police prevent everyone from getting mugged. Getting mugged is undesirable, that's why we have police officers to deal with it.


Peter Brown wrote:and locally the Conservatives are crusading against every new licence application.


Every licence application for.... ? Pubs? Mosques? Synagogues? Police stations? It's not clear what you're talking about.


Peter Brown wrote:I would say you have more chance of opening a Mosque,...


Oh, you meant that Conservatives are 'crusading' against new pub licenses, and that it would be easier to get a license to open a mosque than a pub?

Would you like to support that supposedly real world contention with some real world evidence?


Peter Brown wrote:... but the Muslims who tried opening yet another mega Mosque were blocked planning permission because there wasn’t the need for yet another one,...


So, confusingly, you next contradict what you said would have had more chance than a pub, and their planning permission was blocked, because there isn't a need for yet another one. That's probably also a common reason why a pub's planning permission might be blocked.


Peter Brown wrote:.... and the smaller one nearer to me is desperate for donations because the Saudi’s didn’t back them like the mega Mosque Muslims.


All religious clerical institutions beg for money - clergy are parasites on the human organism - likewise all religions have foisted off the notion that donations to such institutions are holy. There are far more significant religions with respect to begging for donations - Buddhism is such an example. If you walk out onto the streets at 5 in the morning in Thailand, no matter whether you're in the city or country, there'll be dozens of people waiting to kneel before a mendicant monk come to bless them and take their offerings.

Likewise, temples in Thailand are frequently sponsored by both political institutions, and private ones. Some of the richest temples even support the opening of other temples. This is business as usual for the clerical parasites, and once again very much not unique to Islam.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 26279
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#624  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 15, 2015 11:17 am

Peter Brown wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Peter Brown wrote:no, my dislike of Islam is whats in the Qur'an backed by what happened over 1400 years of history.


We can say the same about the bible and what has happened over 2000 years of history.

Basically, you can condemn christanity on exactly the same basis that you condemn islam. So why choose one over the other?

We dislike both religions. We think they are both bad and problematic. However, we do not think that the problems associated with those religions extend to every person who follows those religions. You think that Islam is somehow extra-specially bad, but can't evidence why.

The problem is extremist behaviour and that's a problem no matter what religion it is associated with.

If you want to have a sensible discussion about the how and the why of Islamic religious extremism, then we can do that. The issues however, are way more complicated than just pointing at the Qu'ran and saying "muslims bad!"


and the only comment I made when Thomas started on his ranting

I have not ranted about anything Peter.

Peter Brown wrote:about other religions was this is a subsection on Islam, take it elsewhere stop derailing the topic on mosques, which isn't a topic about churches or any other hall of woo.

And I've explained, multiple times, that it is very much on topic as it goes to the conistency of your position.
That you continue to pretend this hasn't been explained to you only serves to reinforce that you've no interest in a rational discussion.

Peter Brown wrote:If you can't talk about Islam

Virtually everyone in this thread, including myself, has talked about Islam.

Peter Brown wrote:, then ask questions,

Nope Peter, you don't get to dictate the content of other people's posts.

Peter Brown wrote: but don't get insulting

This is the umpteenth time you've asserted that people have insulted you.
I've asked you, several times, to quote people insulting or attacking you.
Your failure to demonstrate this demonstrates that this is yet another disengenuous appeal to persecution.

Peter Brown wrote: and dismissive as some here have done when Islamic quotes are returned.

Except we haven't been merely dismissive. We've explained why those quotes are not a sound basis to dismiss the entire muslim population/close mosques.

Peter Brown wrote: Or it will be no wonder when off topic messages are ignored, they deserve to be ignored. My crime has been not ignoring more of them.

No your crime is this disengenuous dismissal in an attempt to hide the fact that you cannot adress the points being made.

Peter Brown wrote:
Basically, you can condemn christanity on exactly the same basis that you condemn islam. So why choose one over the other?


and because this is always the same sad tune I'll shout it again in bigger bold stand out type

IT IS A ISLAM SECTION NOT A ALL RELIGION SUB SECTION

Mindlessly shouting your position does not make it sound or true Peter.
It's perfectly fair and on topic to draw comparisons between Islam and other religions when it serves to point out the flaws in your arguments.

Peter Brown wrote:But I basically disagree with the premice all religions are the same,

Sendraks has made no such claim. Stop with this asinine straw-man Peter.

Peter Brown wrote:that really is a false claim

Hence why no-one has made as has been pointed out to you.

Peter Brown wrote: which I've seen used to excuse a religion doing bad shit with the smoke screen of all are the same.
Muslims and Christians hate gays, but Islam says kill from high hights, Moses says stone them, whatever and Christianity love the sinner not the sinner, aand that makes all three the same. Jog on.

Since they all claim to obey the same god, yes in that sense they are the same as it is the same god that says stone them.
And it's already been explained to you that 'hate the sin, not the sinner', is a disengenuous platitude that draws a distinction where there is none.

Peter Brown wrote:And I know damn well the people who use this slight of debating hand tactic are hypocrits because in the next paragraph they say, not all Muslims are the same are they. Well when is a Muslim not a Muslim, a Christian not a Christian? When they don't follow the Muhammads example if a Muslim or Jesus if a Christian I'd say, so why isn't that acceptable as a discription and a straw man.

off to walk the dog

FFS Peter, the only person in this thread who keeps making asinine No True Scotsman fallacies is you.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30269
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#625  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 15, 2015 11:18 am

Peter Brown wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: It doesn't matter what the percentage cited is, though, as Peter has to ignore it to keep on the schtick that all Muslims are guilty for the actions of a tiny fraction of Muslims.


Or, if pressed, no-true-scotsman all those muslims who aren't part of that tiny fraction.


here we go again, the book say a fix statement, and you say its a no true scotsman

Becaus the book doesn't say that, it reads that and different Muslim sects have different interpetations of the book.

Peter Brown wrote:No wonder I think these views are bollocks

If you're stuck in a bigoted, prejudiced view, then no, it's no surprise.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30269
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#626  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 15, 2015 11:29 am

Peter Brown wrote:
and the only comment I made when Thomas started on his ranting about other religions was this is a subsection on Islam, take it elsewhere stop derailing the topic on mosques, which isn't a topic about churches or any other hall of woo.


When you make factual errors regarding qualities supposedly unique to mosques or Islam, counter examples showing you that this is not unique is not off topic. Don't be absurd.


Peter Brown wrote:If you can't talk about Islam, then ask questions,...


And who are we supposed to turn to for information on Islam, Peter? YOU? Pull the other one, you're no expert on Islam.


Peter Brown wrote:... but don't get insulting and dismissive as some here have done when Islamic quotes are returned.


As, in fact, only you did when you were shown quotes from the exact same source directly contradictory to the ones you'd cherrypicked.


Peter Brown wrote:Or it will be no wonder when off topic messages are ignored, they deserve to be ignored. My crime has been not ignoring more of them.


It will be no wonder if you start ignoring topics - it's because you can't address them. That's why you've repeatedly ignored all the points of previous posts.

Once again, the fact that you admit to ignoring posts shows that you are absolutely unwilling to engage in any level of discussion. You want an echo-chamber for the virulent nastiness you've uncritically bought into. Sorry, Peter - you are not getting such an echo-chamber here no matter how frequently you stamp your feet. There are other websites that cater to such forms of expression, and if you don't want your absurdities challenged, post your dreck there. That is, of course, not to suggest that you bugger off - you can, of course, post on both forums, but the point is that posting such dreck here will meet posts contending your ridiculous claims, and you getting upset about it.


Peter Brown wrote:
Basically, you can condemn christanity on exactly the same basis that you condemn islam. So why choose one over the other?


and because this is always the same sad tune I'll shout it again in bigger bold stand out type

IT IS A ISLAM SECTION NOT A ALL RELIGION SUB SECTION


Islam IS a religion, Peter - that's another false dichotomy you've tried to foist off as fact.


Peter Brown wrote:But I basically disagree with the premice all religions are the same, that really is a false claim which I've seen used to excuse a religion doing bad shit with the smoke screen of all are the same.


Then disagree and make a coherent argument supporting that contention, don't just assert it and simultaneously assert that the other reasoned positions which have been put forward to counter than contention are false. You're not even putting in a modicum of effort - it's as if you expect your claims to be taken as gospel. No, Peter - look at the name of the forum 'rational skepticism'. Your claims are being addressed by people who value rationality and skepticism, and that necessarily involves applications of evidence rather than expressions of certainty.


Peter Brown wrote:Muslims and Christians hate gays, but Islam says kill from high hights, Moses says stone them, whatever and Christianity love the sinner not the sinner, aand that makes all three the same. Jog on.


Again, you run through some cherrypicked quotes in a confusing way that actually contradicts the point you're presumably trying to make.

Moses says stone them 'whatever'? Is it so very different to be stoned to death as opposed to flung off a building? Is there some moral evaluation in there you are making between the two apparently identical expressions of violent repression? Again, Peter - you don't seem to understand your own arguments.


Peter Brown wrote:And I know damn well the people who use this slight of debating hand tactic are hypocrits because in the next paragraph they say, not all Muslims are the same are they. Well when is a Muslim not a Muslim, a Christian not a Christian? When they don't follow the Muhammads example if a Muslim or Jesus if a Christian I'd say, so why isn't that acceptable as a discription and a straw man.


Again, this is totally illegible.

What 'sleight of hand debating tactic' - you haven't yet even talked about one, let alone established it as true.

Next up we're hypocrites because... not all Muslims are the same.....?

How does that make someone a hypocrite?

Finally, you once again churn out yet another expression of defining a True Believer which you have crafted, and which you fail to acknowledge has been used endlessly throughout the history of religion by every group about every other group.

They ALL say that, Peter - our group is right, theirs is mistaken. Why are you indulging in such theological masturbation? It's nonsense, Peter. There is no One True Christianity any more than there is a One True Islam - as atheists we often point this out as being detrimental to their claims that they have received some kind of divine instruction, so why on earth are you capitulating sectarian theistic argumentation?
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jul 15, 2015 11:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 26279
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#627  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 15, 2015 11:30 am

Peter Brown wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: It doesn't matter what the percentage cited is, though, as Peter has to ignore it to keep on the schtick that all Muslims are guilty for the actions of a tiny fraction of Muslims.


Or, if pressed, no-true-scotsman all those muslims who aren't part of that tiny fraction.


here we go again, the book say a fix statement, and you say its a no true scotsman

No wonder I think these views are bollocks



The book says a statement which different people interpret differently. This is factually establishable. It's happened throughout recorded history. It's directly observable today. Why do you pretend otherwise?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 26279
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#628  Postby tuco » Jul 15, 2015 11:33 am

Spearthrower wrote:
tuco wrote:7% out of 1.7 bil are violent extremists? That is roughly 120 mil wow shall I be skeptical or just carry on? Carry on.


If you read back through, I've made it quite clear that the percentage I am using is from the least conservative estimates - basically, political pundits on right wing news channels. The more academic sources suggest less than 1%. It doesn't matter what the percentage cited is, though, as Peter has to ignore it to keep on the schtick that all Muslims are guilty for the actions of a tiny fraction of Muslims.


Well, it does kind of matter what % and not because of someone in this thread. I would expect it to be under 1% hence my reaction.

Other than that, Nicko summed it up. The thing is that there will probably always be those with opposing view and they will not have change of mind regardless of reasoning. I am not going to read 30 pages when I know on page 1 what the result will be. For all practical purposes this is not scientific question but rather political one. The poll was fitting as if this issue was decided in reality it would be decided politically not scientifically. In such case, Peter's or whoever's asking for "regulation" concerns are legitimate: his opinion has the same (voting) power as anyone else.
tuco
 
Posts: 15290

Print view this post

Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#629  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 15, 2015 11:38 am

tuco wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
tuco wrote:7% out of 1.7 bil are violent extremists? That is roughly 120 mil wow shall I be skeptical or just carry on? Carry on.


If you read back through, I've made it quite clear that the percentage I am using is from the least conservative estimates - basically, political pundits on right wing news channels. The more academic sources suggest less than 1%. It doesn't matter what the percentage cited is, though, as Peter has to ignore it to keep on the schtick that all Muslims are guilty for the actions of a tiny fraction of Muslims.


Well, it does kind of matter what % and not because of someone in this thread. I would expect it to be around under 1% hence my reaction.


Yes, when I originally explained this to Peter, I cited and sourced the under 1% mark. But Peter dismissed it as baloney, so I went and found out what pundits on Fox News and the like say, to give the 'benefit of the doubt', so to speak.

When I said 'it doesn't matter', obviously I didn't mean with respect to the actual facts, but rather with respect to my argument.

Even if it was 7%, it doesn't change my point that you don't ascribe the guilt of actions performed by 7% of a group onto the other 93%. It's not reasonable to do so. It's even harder to swallow when the actual number is used: less than 1%.

But I still can't get Peter to acknowledge this.


tuco wrote:Other than that, Nicko summed it up. The thing is that there will probably always be those with opposing view and they will not have change of mind regardless of reasoning. I am not going to read 30 pages when I know on page 1 what the result will be. For all practical purposes this is not scientific question but rather political one. The poll was fitting as if this issue was decided in reality it would be decided politically not scientifically.


Very true.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 26279
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#630  Postby Nicko » Jul 15, 2015 11:49 am

Peter Brown wrote:well I gave my reasons, and Keep it real did too,


Here's the problem, Peter.

You have done no such thing.

You have presented reasons why you think Islam is bad.

You have not presented anything like an argument that forced closure of all mosques would be a prudent, legal or ethical thing to do. Your "argument" has basically run: Islam is bad so mosques should be outlawed.

You have utterly failed to consider the damage such legislation would do to the very foundations of secular societies, You have utterly failed to consider the ethical basis of collectively discriminating against an entire group based on the actions of some of its members. You have utterly failed to consider the effectiveness of this legislation.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8638
Age: 43
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#631  Postby tuco » Jul 15, 2015 11:55 am

Alright, point stands regardless of actual numbers.

The majority of voters here were legit. Maybe ignorant, maybe failed to acknowledge, maybe phobic but still legit. That is until (higher) court (for human rights) will decide otherwise. That is my point.
tuco
 
Posts: 15290

Print view this post

Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#632  Postby Nicko » Jul 15, 2015 12:01 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Similarly, I don't like pubs.

Some people who go to pubs get drunk and engage in all manner of violent and destructive behavior.

But I don't want all pubs shut down because of it - most people who use pubs don't do this, and I have no reason to deny them their liberty. That I don't like pubs does not make it reasonable for me to elevate my preferences over others' and deny them theirs.


Moreover, the US conducted a large-scale experiment in the early part of last century on what happens when you try to ban pubs and the data thus obtained seem to suggest this is a counterproductive thing to do.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8638
Age: 43
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#633  Postby tuco » Jul 15, 2015 12:12 pm

Yet they wage war on drugs .. indeed invite enemy to your table to keep an eye.
tuco
 
Posts: 15290

Print view this post

Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#634  Postby Peter Brown » Jul 15, 2015 12:30 pm

Spearthrower wrote:

Oh, they only close the violent ones, do they Peter? I wonder why that is.... do you think it's because it would be unreasonable to close all pubs due to the violence of a few?


and if it was, and all the pubs were violent or had the 'looks violent sort go there' you'd close them, I know that is human nature to close them. It is no different to banning smoking in public places, you don't like the potential harm smoking does, so eventually you ban more and more venues until you ban the product. You are the person saying smoking is bad not everyone gets cancer and if you disagree with ST its a strawman it doesn't count.

It's not only the synagogues and schools which have the police preventing Jews being mugged, it's all of society having the police prevent everyone from getting mugged. Getting mugged is undesirable, that's why we have police officers to deal with it.



I did try to do a little into this and the most I could get was the attacks were made by brown Asian looking people and a few whites. This was in Jewish media outlets, the general media is incredibly silent on the suspects and only ever briefly mentions the rise in anti Jewish violence, just like they are very silent with the latest round of paedophiles rings being pointed at.

I personally think the anti Israel and pro Gaza movement being run by certain ‘known’ Muslim groups is triggering the attack. This is all just being a bigot for you, so easy to ignore the attacks. But it wasn’t just neo Nazi skinheads doing it. Maybe the police agreed with this assessment as they increased the protection after Charlie Hebdo massacre and not because skinheads had a recent ragga comeback movement.

Maybe if they closed the local Mosques these thugs wouldn’t be spoon fed the anti Jewish bile from the Quran?


Would you like to support that supposedly real world contention with some real world evidence?


Can’t, its news from local counsel flyers written by the Residents Association. Besides I would be very uncomfortable to say exactly where I live and such information would give away too many clues. I really do live near people who have supported ISIS and other Islamic extremists and even though a few of these Muslims are in jail or fighting abroad I recon my well being would be at risk if they knew where I lived! I have received death threats online from Muslims abroad when confronting the violent teachings of Muhammad.

Peter Brown wrote:.... and the smaller one nearer to me is desperate for donations because the Saudi’s didn’t back them like the mega Mosque Muslims.



All religious clerical institutions beg for money - clergy are parasites on the human organism


Which is why I welcome the Tories looking into Muslim charities as not all that money is going to 'good causes' as they found out a few support terrorist activities. We are not just talking Imams, it is the current trend now for Muslims to say Dawah, post a few vidoes having a go at other faiths or athiest then beg for money. Quite a few of them associate with known hate preachers, hate preaching Mosques and have been banned from speaking at public events. Again you'll just say your a bigot, but it is really going on, and this wasn't so 30 years ago, but 30 years ago the money wasn't being pumped in from Saudi and Pakistan to fund Wahhabi and Salifist Mosques.

this is so off topic too
User avatar
Peter Brown
 
Posts: 4288

Print view this post

Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#635  Postby Sendraks » Jul 15, 2015 12:37 pm

Peter Brown wrote:
Which is why I welcome the Tories looking into Muslim charities as not all that money is going to 'good causes' as they found out a few support terrorist activities.


I think we all approve of this. No one wants charities to fund terrorism. No one wants a charity to misappropriate their funds.

Peter Brown wrote:Again you'll just say your a bigot,

Not on the basis of your first sentence. There is nothing bigoted about careful scrutiny of charities to ensure they're behaving as a charity should. The bigotry begins when you say things like...

Peter Brown wrote:Quite a few of them associate with known hate preachers, hate preaching Mosques and have been banned from speaking at public events.


Quite a few? Which is basically you saying "many" of them. Given that you can't evidence this, all you're doing is saying that many of these charities associate with known hate preachers etc etc. That is a bigoted thing to say.

Peter Brown wrote: but it is really going on, and this wasn't so 30 years ago, but 30 years ago the money wasn't being pumped in from Saudi and Pakistan to fund Wahhabi and Salifist Mosques.

Don't say its "really going on" because this sounds like a whiny plead. Evidence this. Provide information that supports the claim you are making, because otherwise it just reads as:

"they're really, really bad. please believe me when I say they're really bad. because they're really bad."

This is not persuasive.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15151
Age: 103
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#636  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 15, 2015 12:42 pm

Random videos being dropped, I can do dat!

I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 26279
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#637  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 15, 2015 12:43 pm

Peter Brown wrote:
Quite a few of them associate with known hate preachers, hate preaching Mosques and have been banned from speaking at public events.



Quite a few?

How many is that then? To me, a few suggests 3... 4?

What percentage does that represent, Peter?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 26279
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#638  Postby Nicko » Jul 15, 2015 12:44 pm

Sendraks wrote:This is not persuasive.


Particularly since Peter has provided no logical connection between his assertions regarding the nature of Islam and the advisability of banning all mosques.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8638
Age: 43
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#639  Postby Peter Brown » Jul 15, 2015 12:53 pm

my logic once more

If the Qur'an is a book of currently criminal ideas in some countries then people who practice those criminal activites should face the judge.

If a criminal organisation meet in a hall to promote criminal ventures, then they should be denied access to that hall.

Calling your criminal organisation a religion, or hiding behind hangalongs is not nor ever should be an excuse to evade justice if you break the law or promote breaking the law of the land.

People who support criminal organisations and don't wish them to face the judge for breaking the law are as guilty as the criminal; they are aiding and abetting crimes o take place.

Calling someone a criminal if they invite others to break the law with them is not being a bigit or a strawman or a true scotsman.

Stating what the religion tells the follower because it is a book is not a true Scotsman fallacy, it is just a plain simple reality that the book they believe is from Allah is telling them to do crimes. Pretending that it wasn’t is aiding and abetting the crimes to carry on.

Why do some Muslims not follow the Qur'an as writen? Maybe they fear the punishment of man more than that of Allah, the whole bedrock of Islam is the fear of Allah has to be greater than the fear of men. Yep that's in there too.
User avatar
Peter Brown
 
Posts: 4288

Print view this post

Re: Would you support the forced closure of all mosques...

#640  Postby Peter Brown » Jul 15, 2015 12:55 pm

Nicko wrote:
Sendraks wrote:This is not persuasive.


Particularly since Peter has provided no logical connection between his assertions regarding the nature of Islam and the advisability of banning all mosques.


I said it before but just for you it was the question had only yes or no as a responce. Ideally I'd just get rid of the ones which really do pump out the hate in the Quran
User avatar
Peter Brown
 
Posts: 4288

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Islam

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest