Don't worry, some people don't know the basics of having a discussion or debate, and just know how to insult people and try to create nonsensical arguments.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
More Dawkins idiocy...
- Thread starter Augustus
- Start date
Don't worry, some people don't know the basics of having a discussion or debate, and just know how to insult people and try to create nonsensical arguments.
outhouse
Atheistically
Common knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism
Islamic terrorism is, by definition, terrorist acts committed by Muslim groups or individuals who profess Islamic or Islamist motivations or goals. Islamic terrorists have relied on particular interpretations of the tenets of the Quran and the Hadith, citing these scriptures to justify violent tactics including mass murder, genocide, child-molestation and slavery.
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/sites/default/files/Global Terrorism Index Report 2014_0.pdf
82% of all those killed were ALL in 5 Islamic countries.
IRAQ
AFGHANISTAN
PAKISTAN
NIGERIA
SYRIA
Tomorrows_Child
Active Member
Yeah, I'm starting to understand it's a futile effort on my part lol
Tomorrows_Child
Active Member
Very well put and in all honesty, the english definition of the term terrorism is completely ignored by just about everyone. If we are to take that definition on board, the US army is the largest terrorist group in the history of the world.
"Premise: Operations Northwoods. Conclusion: Therefore, 9/11 was an inside job." Got it.
By the way, which three books on logic that you studied during college were your favorites, and why?
I agree that I first responded to your post. It was your subsequent response to me that caused me to claim strawmen arguments on your part, which I later documented in detail, but let's move forward:
Muslims claim that Islam is final, perfect, and unalterable. That's the heart of the problem. I'm happy to grant you that there are parts of Islam that are compatible with our best morals and ethics.
The problem is that there are parts that are immoral and unethical, and because Muslims take it all as dogma, it's not up for discussion or refinement. I'll give you two examples: Islam claims that apostasy is a capital crime, and Islam claims that slavery is morally acceptable. These are both immoral beliefs, and Islam doesn't allow us to refine them.
There are many English definitions of "terrorism". Some of them have more explanatory power than others. Which one(s) are you referring to?
You've got a Muslim here debating with you , and you're telling him what Muslims believe??? How about showing some humility and asking him what Muslims believe, I'm sure he knows much better than you!!
Lyndon and TC - Logical fallacies, e.g. strawman arguments, are a well known phenomenon, entire books have been written about them. Are you saying that some of these fallacies should be allowed in debates? If so, which ones do you think should be allowed?
Or perhaps you're saying that you should be allowed to include fallacies in your arguments and the burden should be on the rest of us to figure out which parts of your posts you really meant?
Or... what?
I have been debating Muslims for years now. I have been told the same things over and over by many Muslims.
Tomorrows_Child
Active Member
That's not true, the Oxford English Dictionary, along with the Cambridge and Macmillan versions have the same definition, almost word for word. The OED, has recently added in the prefix of "without authority" or something along those lines but they all talk of "the use of violence and intimidation for political gain". They all, quite openly, refer to the same aspects.
Now, you can probably find some weird and wonderful dictionary on the internet but I have mentioned the foundations of the english language. The ones that matter.
Most of the debates I've had, have been right here on RF - they're on the record dude. As an aside, which translations of the Quran have you read? I have three. Read one cover to cover, and cross checked the other two.
Huh? I ask for the definition of "terrorism" that you're using and I get this...this lecture by you on which dictionaries ought to matter most to me? Gawd, dude, let's start all over again...how do you define terrorism? Which definition are you yourself using when you say the US Army is the largest terrorist group in the history of the world?
For a minute there, I thought you were relying on one or another government definition of terrorism, but I guess you're just a fan of running to the nearest dictionary. Do you even know how word definitions in a dictionary are compiled? I do, but I doubt you do, or you wouldn't be so quick to run to them.
Here's the Oxford def. that you like: "The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" I don't see how that results, as you have suggested, in the US Army being the largest terrorist organization in the world.
Note the differences between the Oxford definition of terrorism and these definitions:
The CIA defines terrorism according to Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d): "The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."
The FBI definition is a bit more lengthy than the CIAs and can be read here.
There are also definitions of terrorism in use by the US Military, and by various other governments and international bodies. You should look some of those up to get a feeling for how much diversity there is in how the word is defined.
I have read the definitive one, The King Fahd Saudi Translation, many of the translations available are not by reknowned Islamic scholars, and so are to be treated skeptically.
Anyway its glaringly obvious even if you have been talking to Muslims online, you haven't been listening.
You trust the CIA's definition, a known terrorist organization, more than the Oxford dictionary, no wonder we can't have a rational discussion.
LMAO! You're always good for some comic relief, Lyndon. Thanks!
I know you think fallacy arguments are nonsense. That said, how about we dispense with the ad hominem attacks? In other words, can you give specific examples to back up your claim that I haven't been listening?
(BTW, the King Fahd complex is also the one I read. I agree that it's the version most commonly reprinted in English, which is why I read it. That said, many of the Muslims I've debated have told me that they don't think it should be considered the definitive translation.)
outhouse
Atheistically
Its obvious you have never discussed religion with a muslim
You don't get questions answered, ever. You ask a question, and they answer with another question if you are lucky.
They are trained from a early age not to discuss anything that goes against the koran.
You will notice every topic I brought was ignored and only rhetoric in reply.
Our friend would not discuss why there are no credible musilm scholars, because he cannot without getting into the negative side of fanaticism.
I keep you on ignore for great reasons, you never stop to amaze me
Last edited: