quas wrote:
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

The responsibility for terrorism and intolerance towards Muslims lies exclusively with those perpetrating such acts
Because these acts would still occur even if there were no non Muslims who were permissive or supportive of Islam

Ironclad wrote:There was a dangerous time recently for.. I believe it was the mayor of Jakarta. A Christian mayor. Whisperings of blasphemy we creeping his way, but of course it was an attempt to remove and discredit him in the run up to elections, dangerous.

If blasphemy was actually committed, even I would find it acceptable that this Christian mayor be punished for his sin. But, as in most cases like this, the charge of blasphemy is completely made-up and untrue. Why are they doing it? Aside from hatred towards non-Muslims, there is a political element behind the blasphemy charge.

Here's a more details:
https://theintercept.com/2017/04/18/tru ... president/

Summary: Muslims staged massive protests because allegedly a Christian mayor had committed blasphemy. Turns out the protest was a pretext to overthrow the government. Which is to say, even if blasphemy hadn't been committed, they would have to pretend that blasphemy occurred, so that they would have reason to stage massive protests. It's a win-win for them. If the protests succeed in overthrowing the government, the Muslims can take over the government. If not, at the very least they can use this as negotiating leverage against the government. "Give us money and political seats, or else we will stage bigger protests next time!" The government has caved in. I thought they are just going to get money and probably a few ministerial positions. It's much crazier. The head of the National Islamic Cleric Council of Indonesia - the guy who signed the paper declaring that blasphemy had been committed- is given the vice-presidential candidacy for the upcoming election. That's tantamount to if a terrorist were to strap a bomb on the president's body and threaten to blow up the president if the president refuses to hand over the presidency. But here's the thing, no actual bomb was involved!

So you personally think blasphemy is a punishable "crime" ?

surreptitious57 wrote:

quas wrote:
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

The responsibility for terrorism and intolerance towards Muslims lies exclusively with those perpetrating such acts
Because these acts would still occur even if there were no non Muslims who were permissive or supportive of Islam

Without Islam existing, there would be no Muslim hatred, intolerance and violence towards non-Muslims.

Without religion existing, would people still hurt and kill other people? Probably, but it would be that much harder. As it stands right now, religion has become the socially acceptable way to express sadism & psychopathy towards other human beings. For example, if you are an asshole who wants to fuck up someone's life, you could falsely accuse a person of rape or murder. But, it would be far easier to make false accusation of blasphemy. Blasphemy trials have 100% conviction rate.

quas wrote:
Without Islam existing, there would be no Muslim hatred, intolerance and violence towards non-Muslims.

What a stupid thing to say. And even more to believe. Like there was no hatred, intolerance or violence before Islam existed...

You and your likes hate so much Islam that you're trying to pin everything on it, it's just ... what's stronger than ridiculous ?

Macdoc wrote:So you personally think blasphemy is a punishable "crime" ?

Depends. Do you see yourself as an empathetic person? If you are being empathetic, seeing it from the religious perspective, then of course blasphemy is punishable (and this is perfectly in accordance with religious teaching). But then again, if you are empathetic enough, you would probably think that even FALSE accusation of blasphemy towards the non-believer is perfectly acceptable too, because the basic premise of religion, if accepted, inevitably leads to intolerance.

aban57 wrote: what's stronger than ridiculous ?

The ability to read the first sentence of my post, and then ignore the rest of my post?

I have no empathy at all for religions or memes at all especially those imposing handed down "beliefs" on others, children in particular. A pox on the lot of them.

quas wrote:
Without religion existing would people still hurt and kill other people ? Probably but it would be that much harder. As
it stands right now religion has become the socially acceptable way to express sadism and psychopathy towards human
beings. For example if you are an asshole who wants to fuck up someones life you could falsely accuse a person of rape
or murder. But it would be far easier to make false accusation of blasphemy. Blasphemy trials have I00 % conviction rate

This only works in countries where blasphemy is actually a crime
Here in the West no such law exists so your argument is in that respect completely invalid

If religion did not exist human beings would still be the same. The human condition wouldnt magically
disappear just because no one believed in God anymore. New deities would simply replace the old one

quas wrote:

aban57 wrote: what's stronger than ridiculous ?

The ability to read the first sentence of my post, and then ignore the rest of my post?

Well, the rest of your post is a pathetic attempt at generalizing your hate to all religions, when your first sentence clearly targets Islam. One stupidity at the time.

surreptitious57 wrote:This only works in countries where blasphemy is actually a crime
Here in the West no such law exists so your argument is in that respect completely invalid

If religion did not exist human beings would still be the same. The human condition wouldnt magically
disappear just because no one believed in God anymore. New deities would simply replace the old one

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?

quas wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:This only works in countries where blasphemy is actually a crime
Here in the West no such law exists so your argument is in that respect completely invalid

If religion did not exist human beings would still be the same. The human condition wouldnt magically
disappear just because no one believed in God anymore. New deities would simply replace the old one

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?

The point you keep ignoring is that religion is not the only source of claims that are not based in evidence. Religion is only one kind of stupid human trick.

quas wrote:Do you see yourself as an empathetic person? If you are being empathetic, seeing it from the religious perspective, then of course blasphemy is punishable (and this is perfectly in accordance with religious teaching). But then again, if you are empathetic enough, you would probably think that even FALSE accusation of blasphemy towards the non-believer is perfectly acceptable too, because the basic premise of religion, if accepted, inevitably leads to intolerance.

Tolerance in pluralistic societies is enforced (within limits) by civil law; take that away (what we find in societies that are not pluralistic, or whose civil institutions have failed), and people feel free to give full vent to their impulses of intolerance. 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. This us vs. them clash of civilizations is better seen as a substitute religion, and the right-wing bigotry that inspired the attack in NZ has not originated in impulses of pluralism or liberalism. If pluralism/liberalism is not the dominant impulse of humans, kiss humanity good-bye (and good riddance, if you ask me).

aban57 wrote:
Well, the rest of your post is a pathetic attempt at generalizing your hate to all religions, when your first sentence clearly targets Islam.

So? No other religion has become more hateful and intolerant towards the out-group (non-believers). Islam has very specific doctrines, practices and organizational structures that made it more hateful and intolerant than any other religion. When it comes to doctrines, you have the commandments of martyrdom, and also the biography of Muhammad being a war-monger. As for practices, I've elaborated a bit on their tribalistic customs. By organizational structures, I'm talking about fatwa, which is a ruling on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized authority. This is extremely dangerous, because through a fatwa, a single cleric person can command an entire country of Muslims or even Muslims from all the Muslim countries to attack a single individual or countries even. There is no Christian or Buddhist equivalent to this.

quas wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:This only works in countries where blasphemy is actually a crime
Here in the West no such law exists so your argument is in that respect completely invalid

If religion did not exist human beings would still be the same. The human condition wouldnt magically
disappear just because no one believed in God anymore. New deities would simply replace the old one

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

Religion is the most obvious symptom of it but it is not the actual cause of it and so
if it ever goes irrationality will still remain and simply manifest itself in other ways

I can think of a current irrationality that is entirely non religious and completely ridiculous : Flat Earthism
Unlike God it is demonstrably false and so easy to deny that a child could do it yet some hold it to be true

Cito di Pense wrote:The point you keep ignoring is that religion is not the only source of claims that are not based in evidence. Religion is only one kind of stupid human trick.

Of course, as demonstrated by this thread, allegedly rational and skeptical people can actually judge Sam Harris even if they have never read his book or listen to his podcast. But, at least, I can criticize this peculiar behavior when I see it. With religion, criticism is impossible.

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?

This us vs. them clash of civilizations is better seen as a substitute religion, and the right-wing bigotry that inspired the attack in NZ has not originated in impulses of pluralism or liberalism.

Depends on how you define "clash of civilizations". For the time being, it's unlikely that this leads to world war 3, simply because the world leaders don't think it's economically beneficial to have world war now. But, surely, you will have terrorist attacks here and there. And this now the norm, the status quo, and the world leaders will not do anything about it, because they have done the math and decided that it's more economical to maintain this status quo, to have religion around, so terrorist causalities here and there is simply chalked off as cost of doing business. If you share the views of our political leaders, then I guess it makes sense to permit or support the existence of religion.

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.

surreptitious57 wrote:I can think of a current irrationality that is entirely non religious and completely ridiculous : Flat Earthism
Unlike God it is demonstrably false and so easy to deny that a child could do it yet some hold it to be true

Can you name a politician today that openly declares himself to be a flat-earther and yet somehow entrusted to lead an entire country?

Well, I'd suspect some of the more virulent god botherers to give into flat earthism, but they don't mention it for fear of becoming a laughing stock.

quas wrote:
Can you name a politician today that openly declares himself to be a flat earther and yet entrusted to lead an entire country

No I can not but that does not alter the fact that irrationality is still a part of the human condition
And when a particular manifestation of it becomes popular it will be adopted by politicians anyway