My are we sensitive! I think it is quite relevant when a poster is bashing a religion of another culture to note that the dominant religion in his own culture seems to be just as bad or worse (at least in its fundamentalist form) in regards to the point that he mentions. (And, that the religion that he bashes seems to not always be nearly as bad as the fundamentalist example he noted.)
And, I am hardly a fan of Islam or any religion…especially in its fundamentalist form. I just don’t like double standards.
Well, meaning is in the eyes of the beholder. As for the implication that it may not true, since we are not in the pit, I will withhold any comment on that.
It happened last fall so the group who put out this particular booklet must not have gotten the memo! Although to be fair, the booklet itself could have been several years old…I don’t remember looking at the copyright date.
No, it isn’t relevant. That’s why they call it a red herring. If I say that MLK was a great leader and someone else says so was Gandhi, they’ve done nothing to counter the point I made.
He’s using the Muhammad Pickthall Translation, which is similar to our King James. Before we go banning people, we should make sure our accusations are right.
So Creationists have agreed to all these points? That must be the reason we haven’t seen any of the points discussed in your link brought up by Creationists in the last five years.
In answer to Valteron’s original question, I’d say that Muslims are generally peaceful, tolerant, non-confrontational, and intelligent. Thus it’s logical that they’d avoid threads which are nasty, insulting, or stupid. That would include most threads about religion in this forum, and certainly the one linked in the original post.
Well, you can always come up with a poor analogy to justify a silly argument. A better analogy would be if you said that MLK was the first and only leader to adopt non-violent methods of protest and that makes his movement qualitatively different than any other movement before or after…and then I pointed out that Gandhi also adopted such methods and in fact he did so before MLK.
If Valteron wants to argue that fundamentalist Islam tends to be anti-science, then he will get no argument from me. However, if he wants to argue that Islam is somehow unique in this regard, especially in comparison to the dominant religion in Valteron’s own culture, then he will.
What I found in that link (searching on “thermo”) addresses a rather more specific argument about the when the Second Law took affect…i.e., after the fall. I don’t see it directly repudiating the argument that evolution violates the 2nd law. One might argue that some of what they say could be taken as implying that they better understand the concepts and might in fact agree that the argument that evolution violates the 2nd law is ridiculous if you tried to pin them down on this. However, they don’t come right out and say this.
What an ignorant and offensive comment. Okay, Valteron, we get it–you don’t like Muslims. You don’t have to post yet another fucking Muslim-bashing thread to make your point. Jeez. Or, if you feel you must post another such thread full of stupidity like this, do it in the Pit so I can tell you what I really think of you.
However, that argument loses a bit of its persuasive power when one notes that on alternating weeks the poster in question also fulminates against the dominant religion of his culture.
Has anyone in this thread found an actual point to debate? Or is this supposed to be just a round-robin discussion of things that people do not like about other religions or about other posters?
[ /Modding ]
So let me understand this. When YOU offer an example, it must not be dismissed out of hand as unrepresentative and arising out of the actions of a tiny minority?
But that is precisely what people like Tomndebb and yourself do when posters send in graphic images of people caned almost to death, lashed, stoned, when we quote the hundreds of violent passages in the Koran, when we give untold examples of how Muslims are at war with their neighbours all over the world, or when we supply dozens of quotes from Muslims telling us that Islam will overcome the West.
In every case, every outrage and agression must be seen in “context” or as being due to “colonial oppression” or simply due to a “tiny minority”. We are even told (not necessarily by Tomndebb) that we cannot understand the Koran correctly unless it is in Arabic. Don’t you just love that last one? An almighty creator of the universe communicates with humanity in the form of a book. But there is just one catch. To really understand it, you have to understand a language spoken by a tiny minority of the human race. It cannot really be understood in translation.
Funny how that double standard operates. Your examples must not be dismissed as unrepresentative, mine must be.
