quas wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:The ideological intolerance you claim is intrinsic to Islam is really just intrinsic to societies that are not pluralistic enough, and civil laws that promote or even enshrine intolerance (such as blasphemy laws or laws that promote class distinctions) are just less obvious in more pluralistic societies.

So what does it say about religion, if the more pluralistic societies are the less religious ones?

Fallible wrote:

quas wrote:
That's not possible. If the world stops believing in god, that's only because all of us have become more rational and only accept evidence-based claims. Under what circumstance, could the world completely stop believing in god, and people still remained as irrational as before the eradication of religion?

Umm...under the circumstance where people continue to be born. You've got your chicken and egg order mixed up.

quas wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:If pluralism/liberalism is not the dominant impulse of humans, kiss humanity good-bye (and good riddance, if you ask me).

It's not. Pluralism/liberalism is a modern invention.

quas wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

quas wrote:Which is why I'm more pissed at libtards than any religious or white supremacist terrorist.

You want everyone to no longer give a fuck about religion, so you're more pissed at people who don't give a fuck what anyone believes, than you are at people who give so much of a fuck that they commit mass murder.

That's idiotic, insane, and immoral.

Learn to think.

If you twist & frame it that way, of course it sounds ridiculous. But I never said that. My contention is that a lot of non-Muslims are responsible for terrorism and intolerance (which is a much bigger problem than terrorism) of Muslims, because they have been permissive and even supportive towards the acceptance and thus existence of Islam.

OlivierK wrote:But humour me; what would you have liberals do to reduce intolerance of Muslims? What active steps should they take?

Wikipedia wrote:Ahmadiyya had existed before Proclamation of Indonesian Independence.[citation needed] However, Ahmadiyya as a controversial religious minority in Indonesia has only risen sharply in the 2000s with a rise of Islamic fundamentalism. In 2008, many Muslims in Indonesia protested against the Ahmadiyya movement. With large demonstrations, these religious conservatives put pressure on the government to monitor and harass the Ahmadiyya community in Indonesia.

Public opinion in Indonesia is split into two major views on how Ahmadiyya should be treated:

Majority of Muslims throughout Indonesia hold that it should be banned outright on the basis that Ahmadiyah rejected the central tenet of Islam that Muhammad is the last messenger of God; furthermore, Ahmadis should not use Islam as their banner but should constitute their own recognised religion in order to ensure their freedom of religion in Indonesia
Some minorities including Ahmadis and numerous non-governmental organizations hold that Ahmadiyya should be free to act and say as it pleases under the banner of Islam in keeping with the Constitutional right of freedom of religion.
In June 2008, a law was passed to curtail "proselytising" by Ahmadiyya members.[147] An Ahmadiyya mosque was burned.[148] Human rights groups objected to the restrictions on religious freedom. On 6 February 2011 some Ahmadiyya members were killed at Pandeglang, Banten province.[149]

In the past few years there has been an increase in attacks on religious freedom, including incidents of physical abuse, preventing groups from performing prayers, and burning their mosques. Data from the Setara Institute for Democracy and Peace show 17, 18, and 64 incidents for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 respectively.[150] Although the data cover persecution of all religions, the recent persecution of Ahmadis is significant and severe, followed by persecution of Christians and persecution of other Islamic sects who claim to be "genuine/pure/fundamentalist Muslims".

As of 2011, the sect faces widespread calls for a total "ban" in Indonesia.[151] On 6 February 2011, hundreds of mainstream Muslims surrounded an Ahmadiyya household and beat three people to death. Footage of the bludgeoning of their naked bodies – while policeman looked on – was posted on the internet and subsequently broadcast on international media.[152]

quas wrote:Under what circumstance, could the world completely stop believing in god, and people still remained as irrational as before the eradication of religion?

Cito di Pense wrote:And I guess it's one you (and plenty of others) are only too happy to bin. In your case, as long as it means getting rid of one religion in particular, you can stick it to the ones you call libtards. They and the Muslims, messing up your day.

Hermit wrote:When people stop killing each other for god they keep killing each other for race, money, political ideology, jealousy and thousands of other reasons. Your confidence in an increase of rationality is misplaced.

quas wrote:

OlivierK wrote:But humour me; what would you have liberals do to reduce intolerance of Muslims? What active steps should they take?

When they say things like "Muslims are not terrorists and terrorism has no religion", they are contributing to social-acceptance of religion. Now, before my words get twisted again, understand this: I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, or all Muslims are intolerant even. All I'm saying is that if you accept Islam/religion's right to exist, then you accept the existence of the terrorists and the intolerant. And intolerance is a bigger problem than terrorism, because you know why? Social acceptance. If you are a terrorist, even in Muslim countries, the police will hunt you down. But masses protesting peacefully (by definition, death threats are peaceful, because threats do not constitute as violence) demanding a non-Muslim to be persecuted under false charges of blasphemy, then the police will be on the side of the masses. Sometimes, the police would be accepting (or turn a blind eye) towards violence committed by the intolerant (because that's not considered as terrorism!). Maybe it's because the police themselves are also Muslims, and thus empathetic with the intolerant.

Wikipedia wrote:Ahmadiyya had existed before Proclamation of Indonesian Independence.[citation needed] However, Ahmadiyya as a controversial religious minority in Indonesia has only risen sharply in the 2000s with a rise of Islamic fundamentalism. In 2008, many Muslims in Indonesia protested against the Ahmadiyya movement. With large demonstrations, these religious conservatives put pressure on the government to monitor and harass the Ahmadiyya community in Indonesia.

Public opinion in Indonesia is split into two major views on how Ahmadiyya should be treated:

Majority of Muslims throughout Indonesia hold that it should be banned outright on the basis that Ahmadiyah rejected the central tenet of Islam that Muhammad is the last messenger of God; furthermore, Ahmadis should not use Islam as their banner but should constitute their own recognised religion in order to ensure their freedom of religion in Indonesia
Some minorities including Ahmadis and numerous non-governmental organizations hold that Ahmadiyya should be free to act and say as it pleases under the banner of Islam in keeping with the Constitutional right of freedom of religion.
In June 2008, a law was passed to curtail "proselytising" by Ahmadiyya members.[147] An Ahmadiyya mosque was burned.[148] Human rights groups objected to the restrictions on religious freedom. On 6 February 2011 some Ahmadiyya members were killed at Pandeglang, Banten province.[149]

In the past few years there has been an increase in attacks on religious freedom, including incidents of physical abuse, preventing groups from performing prayers, and burning their mosques. Data from the Setara Institute for Democracy and Peace show 17, 18, and 64 incidents for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 respectively.[150] Although the data cover persecution of all religions, the recent persecution of Ahmadis is significant and severe, followed by persecution of Christians and persecution of other Islamic sects who claim to be "genuine/pure/fundamentalist Muslims".

As of 2011, the sect faces widespread calls for a total "ban" in Indonesia.[151] On 6 February 2011, hundreds of mainstream Muslims surrounded an Ahmadiyya household and beat three people to death. Footage of the bludgeoning of their naked bodies – while policeman looked on – was posted on the internet and subsequently broadcast on international media.[152]

quas wrote:And intolerance is a bigger problem than terrorism, because you know why? Social acceptance.

quas wrote:

Hermit wrote:When people stop killing each other for god they keep killing each other for race, money, political ideology, jealousy and thousands of other reasons. Your confidence in an increase of rationality is misplaced.

I am going to repeat this again. Killing people, or even just discriminating on others, based on their race or whatever ideology (those who blasphemously thinks strawberry is the best ice cream flavor) is generally frowned upon. All these crimes have a social-acceptance problem, because they are not committed in the name of religion. Thus, eliminating religion makes it harder for people to be unkind towards each other.

Hermit wrote:Are you perchance arguing that crimes perpetrated for religious reasons are not generally frowned upon?

quas wrote:
I am going to repeat this again. Killing people or even just discriminating on others based on their race or whatever ideology ( those who blasphemously thinks strawberry is the best ice cream flavor ) is generally frowned upon. All these crimes have a social acceptance problem because they are not committed in the name of religion. Thus eliminating religion makes it harder for people to be unkind towards each other

OlivierK wrote:And by the way. This:

quas wrote:And intolerance is a bigger problem than terrorism, because you know why? Social acceptance.

makes you sound like a recruiting sergeant for liberalism.

When you then go on to advocate intolerance of Islam, you're not only being incoherent, you're calling your own position worse than terrorism. Regardless of what I think of your position's lack of merit, even I wouldn't go that far.

quas wrote:

Hermit wrote:Are you perchance arguing that crimes perpetrated for religious reasons are not generally frowned upon?

Yes, intolerance, and violence arising from said intolerance, committed under the name of religion are more socially-accepted than intolerance and violence committed for any other reason. The degree of social acceptance is directly proportional to how religious a society is. Open discrimination towards fans of strawberry ice cream is not as popular/socially-accepted (even in religious societies highly intolerant of gay and pink stuff).

Macdoc wrote:too often given a pass ....see catholic priests et

quas wrote:

OlivierK wrote:And by the way. This:

quas wrote:And intolerance is a bigger problem than terrorism, because you know why? Social acceptance.

makes you sound like a recruiting sergeant for liberalism.

When you then go on to advocate intolerance of Islam, you're not only being incoherent, you're calling your own position worse than terrorism. Regardless of what I think of your position's lack of merit, even I wouldn't go that far.

You seriously can't distinguish between militant atheism's intolerance of religion and religious intolerance of non-believers? Let's make this easy for you. Militant atheism does not call for discrimination, hatred, persecution and violence towards religious people.

OlivierK wrote:Well, some militant atheists apparently think that anti-religious mass murder is less troublesome than secular liberalism, so I've got to wonder.

But lets just take you at your word that you're all live and let live when it comes to followers of religions - a real stand up non-discriminator and non-persecutor, but you just want religion kept out of the sphere of public influence and kept separate from the state. Explain to me how that's not the liberal position that you hurl insults against?

How exactly do you propose to eradicate religion? You sound like you're just advocating for a mirror image of the blasphemy laws you despise. Those guys think non-belief shouldn't exist, and should be eradicated. You sound just like them.