Nothing to do with Islam?

[Kangaroo Feathers]

In a debate, an ad hominem is when you attack your opponent, not their ideas. By claiming I'm experiencing "cognitive dissonance" you are not responding to my arguments.

Pointing out that someone else is experiencing cognitive disonance is not inherently an "attack". It would only fall under "ad hominem" if I was using it to counter any of your arguments. That isn't what I did. I was responding to your claim that my "accusations" as you call them, are "unfounded".

 

[icehorse]

The comment was not made in isolation, but rather in the context of the thread, i.e. "Islam is bad because...". If this were a dispassionate, objective and academic discussion of Islam, fine, but let's not fool ourselves that that's ever what this thread was meant to be.

I'm answering only to my own posts, and I am being as objective as I can be. I acknowledge that I have biases, as we all do, but the arguments stand or fall on their own merits. It makes no difference what the biases or history of the claimant is. When you said something like I had a "glint in my eye", the only thing I can suspect is that you're reacting to the fact that I'm prepared for the debate. The reason I'm prepared is that there are only so many apologist arguments, and I've heard most of them many times in the past.

 

[icehorse]

Pointing out that someone else is experiencing cognitive disonance is not inherently an "attack". It would only fall under "ad hominem" if I was using it to counter any of your arguments. That isn't what I did. I was responding to your claim that my "accusations" as you call them, are "unfounded".

I would be fine if you could demonstrate some cognitive dissonance within my arguments, if you can, please do so.

 

[icehorse]

So Mr Condell is an Islamophobic ranter..... is that fairly accurate?

I've known and worked beside several UK Muslims over the years and they have not fitted with your ideas about Muslim males.

And women's rights supporters here focus upon just that, with no bias towards Muslim men one way or the other.

We are discussing Islam. No one person's personal anecdotes have much statistical meaning when discussing a faith adhered to by more than a billion people. I can completely accept that you've known some fine Muslims. So have I. Those facts are statistically meaningless.

 

[sayak83]

For the sake of discussion, I could agree with both of those claims, and still feel it's appropriate to give Islam harsh criticism. (And, FWIW, I'm also quite critical of Christianity.)

Yes. I am also happy to criticize Islam and its deficiencies. For example nonbelievers going to hell, injunction against interfaith marriage, allowing slavery etc.

 

[Sakeenah]

We are discussing Islam. No one person's personal anecdotes have much statistical meaning when discussing a faith adhered to by more than a billion people. I can completely accept that you've known some fine Muslims. So have I. Those facts are statistically meaningless.

You are applying double standards here. When I said let's discuss the Islamic faith and actual Islamic opinons you said this in post 81

" I disagree. I think I'm on solid ground using the behaviors of Muslims as my evidence."

And now that someone else ( @oldbadger ) uses the same method to disagree with you, you say.

" We are discussing Islam. No one person's personal anecdotes have much statistical meaning when discussing a faith adhered to by more than a billion people. I can completely accept that you've known some fine Muslims. So have I. Those facts are statistically meaningless"

Ice horse, if you want to have a discussion about Islam. Let us talk about what Muslims actually believe. If you want to discuss Muslims( past and present), that's fine with me, but don't call it a discussion on Islam.

 

[Augustus]

Jesus isn't the final incarnate revelation of God?? Finality is all over Christianity as well.

AFAIK, there is nothing necessarily final, certainly within the Protestant tradition. Catholic/Orthodox I don't really know.

 

[Augustus]

But since you brought it up, I think both religions have extremely bloody histories to answer for.

In the interests of fairness, if talking about histories, post-religious/secular societies have not proved any less bloody (the opposite actually on balance).

The 250 years of post-Enlightenment European history, when viewed from a macro perspective, is unusually violent.

 

[oldbadger]

We are discussing Islam. No one person's personal anecdotes have much statistical meaning when discussing a faith adhered to by more than a billion people. I can completely accept that you've known some fine Muslims. So have I. Those facts are statistically meaningless.

You might be, mate, but the OP referred to his previous thread on Islam and Feminism, and asked whether 'violence, oppression, and misogyny' was driven by Islam.

And one way of gauging that is to review Muslim folks that you have known well over time, because Islam will have helped to develop their views, opinions and actions.

It is true that in the UK we are doing our best to stamp down on child genital mutilation, gender separation in education, schools which vary from the standard curriculum, gender inequality and oppression etc, but this is being applied to many cultures and religions rather than just 'Islam'.

And on average women here don't favour Muslims in the ways that the OP suggested in the other thread........ so that's all strange to read about.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

AFAIK, there is nothing necessarily final, certainly within the Protestant tradition. Catholic/Orthodox I don't really know.

No, there will be no more prophets or anything that we are bound to believe. The age of public revelation is over.

http://catholicstraightanswers.com/...elieve-the-apparitions-of-the-blessed-mother/

 

[icehorse]

You are applying double standards here. When I said let's discuss the Islamic faith and actual Islamic opinons you said this in post 81

" I disagree. I think I'm on solid ground using the behaviors of Muslims as my evidence."

And now that someone else ( @oldbadger ) uses the same method to disagree with you, you say.

" We are discussing Islam. No one person's personal anecdotes have much statistical meaning when discussing a faith adhered to by more than a billion people. I can completely accept that you've known some fine Muslims. So have I. Those facts are statistically meaningless"

Ice horse, if you want to have a discussion about Islam. Let us talk about what Muslims actually believe. If you want to discuss Muslims( past and present), that's fine with me, but don't call it a discussion on Islam.

Sorry for the confusion. Let me clarify two points:

1 - In this type of discussion, I don't think it matters very much what individual Muslims think. It's far more important to understand what the predominant thought patterns are in the Muslim world. So for example, if your neighbor Bob is a Muslim who believes in secularism, that's good, but not really indicative of much. What IS important is the fact that about half the world's Muslims believe in sharia.

2 - In this type of discussion, I don't think it matters much how an individual RFer interprets the scripture, what matters is large scale historical evidence that can tell us how 1400 years of Muslims have tended to interpret the scripture.

BTW, I use the same approach when debating Christianity, or any other large group.

 

[icehorse]

In the interests of fairness, if talking about histories, post-religious/secular societies have not proved any less bloody (the opposite actually on balance).

The 250 years of post-Enlightenment European history, when viewed from a macro perspective, is unusually violent.

Hi @Augustus ,

We've had this exchange before, perhaps it deserves its own thread? My quick response is that the horrors of the various communists experiments should not be categorized as "secular".

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Edit : But first I have to wage Jihad on my dishes.

LOL

 

[LuisDantas]

You think so.

I know it for a fact.

 

[LuisDantas]

Because invading peaceful nations contradict the quran in which it says

(2:190)
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

Can you comprehend what the verse says to the Muslims?

Not particularly. Frankly, I doubt that to matter much either way, either.

The history of inter-Muslims conflict is impressive and even predictable. It does no one any good to pretend to be surprised by its continued existence.