That’s what their 2nd law argument has always been based on, that it began with the fall of man. If they no longer tie it to man’s fall from grace, then it is of no use to them.
Nope. No points to debate.
In a Pit thread, I’d have more to add. Lots more.
I don’t see the doubling. People who post thoughtfully get respect. As far as I can tell, that’s the only standard.
I resisted opening this thread again until this AM, and I concur. One more vote for the Pit.
Along with others, I feel this more a pit thread than a well reasoned debate.
But - the aforementioned ‘Ask the Muslim’ threads do go quite a long way to having reasoned discussions. I learnt a lot from them.
I’m not exactly sure what Valteron really wants to know, but back in the mists of time, before the invective started, the OP had a valid point, as I understood it. Are our value systems (Muslim - western liberal) so different that we have no point of contact? Is it, therefore, pointless to debate with Muslims because a) belief systems are not debatable; and/or b) one side or the other will loose their temper and the thread will end up like this (even despite the fact this thread is devoid of Muslim input)?
But there are points to debate, like the thesis sentence of the OP:
Why anyone would prefer to get pissed off and vent rather than address the premise is unclear. Railroading an unpopular opinion for the sole purpose of having it moved to a place where we’re free to behave like apes and mock the OP might tend to raise a suspicion that counterarguments are unavailable. Islamic culture is different from Western culture. There’s no point in pretending otherwise. The question is whether it is different in that regard. Sure, the same question could be asked in reverse of our culture; i.e., whether Islamic regimes are simply weird to people raised in the West. But it wasn’t. Sure, Christianity has its share of assholes, but that wasn’t the question. Why can’t people on the SDMB simply deal plainly and honestly with questions about non-White non-Western places without pretending that questioning them constitutes an irrational hatred of them?
If the OP showed any signs of being open to reasoned debate on the issue, then you would have a point.
I know I never got the impression Valteron was simply asking questions. Maybe he’s just really bad at expressing himself.
Valteron, ‘data’ is not the plural of ‘anecdote’. Nobody denies that terrible atrocities are committed every day in the name of Islam. At least, nobody who is paying attention. But you seem to want to paint with a broader brush–saying that Islam is an inherently violent religion, or that most Muslims are fanatical extremists. Quoting from the Qur’an won’t establish the former–any more than quoting the Torah will prove that Judaism is intrinsically genocidal or quoting from the New Testament will prove that Christianity is intrinsically pacifistic. And citing anecdotal evidence won’t prove the latter. If you have other evidence for your claims, I for one will be happy to entertain your evidence. If all you want to do is post nasty things about Muslims and not back up your assertions with hard data, then you aren’t going to get any respect, and whining about double standards won’t help your case at all.
I know several US-born Muslims. Black & white. And quite a few Muslim immigrants of various skin colors who get along just fine with “Western culture.”
This is not a context in which I can safely discuss the “irrational hatred” that you mentioned.
I think that it is possible (not necessarily probable) that the issue could be debated rationally, here.
I think that it is unlikely that an OP that starts off with that sinlge linbe buried in a much larger post of ranting is unlikely to succeed in launching such a discussion.
= = =
I have never hand-waved away anyu point. I have made specific counter arguments based on the cultures and histories, providing explicit examples, of the wide-flung peoples who have embraced Islam as a counter to your cherry-picking.
I would say that your dismissal of every rebuttal to your complaints is much more a hand-waving exercise.
I’d like to add that there are Muslim discussion boards where **Valteron ** could take this debate.
I don’t know my way around USA-ones, though. But one of the top-ten largest forums in the Netherlands is www.maroc.nl. This very popular forum is mainly frequented by second-generation immigrant Moroccan Dutch-youngsters. It seems they have few other ways to mee and talk.
Shodan, I demand an apology. I am serious. You are implying that I am lying. In fact, what you have done is to cite an apparently “sanitized” translatioin of Surah 22, verse 15. Your translation reads:
*"22.15. If anyone thinks that GOD cannot support him in this life and in the Hereafter, let him turn completely to (his creator in) heaven, and sever (his dependence on anyone else). He will then see that this plan eliminates anything that bothers him. * "
However, THIS translation is found in the highly regarded English translation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, as well as in the Skeptic’s Annotated Quran
"22:15 Whoso is wont to think (through envy) that Allah will not give him (Muhammad) victory in the world and the Hereafter (and is enraged at the thought of his victory), let him stretch a rope up to the roof (of his dwelling), and let him hang himself. Then let him see whether his strategy dispelleth that whereat he rageth!.
THIS translation by Muslim scholar Kanz-ul-Iman, gives the following rendition of Surah 22, verse 15:
*Whosoever imagines that Allah will not help His prophet in the world and the Hereafter, let him stretch a rope upward and let him hang himself, then let him see whether his device took away that for which his heart is burning. *
I could find you others, but frankly, I think my point is made. To accuse me of being “untruthful” because I did not refer to the same translation as you is a direct attack against my integrity. Your mention of another person banned for making false claims is a direct inference regarding my honesty.
I would liike a ruling from the moderator.
He acknowledged his error in post #48.
It would be great to have that debate. And we have had reasoned debates about Islam here, such as the recent Is Radical Islam in the Minority among Muslims? thread. But as has been pointed out, **Valteron ** isn’t, for the most part, raising debate points. Rather, he is making abusive and ignorant generalizations and accusations about an entire religion comprising 1/6 of the world’s population. By analogy, we have had reasoned debates about Christianity on this board, but **Der Trihs ** has not initiated or made helpful contributions to any of them. The agenda of the OPer and the debaters makes a big difference to whether there is a debate or a train wreck.
That’s true. But it also applies to all the other anecdotal posts in here, like we had a nice thread on Islam once (just before your post) and I’ve known wonderful Muslims (just after your post). Let alone the posts that do nothing but razz and scorn and outright falsely accuse the OP of lying about the Qur’an. Jesus, this is just ridiculous. Knees are jerking so hard that skulls are cracking, and there’s no point in it. The OP is like any other Doper who tends to get riled with this sort of pile-on, and the claim that he won’t listen to reason doesn’t hold water because very little that is reasonable has been expressed.
I don’t really see this as being true at least as I have most often seen the point made (and how it was made in the booklet that I mentioned) which was simply that evolution violates the 2nd law, with no reference whatsoever to when the 2nd law came into effect.
I don’t see this whole discussion of when the 2nd law came into effect as being relevant. Surely, the creationists are not going to feel that God himself is bound by the 2nd law, just as He does not seem to be bound by any physical laws?
You hardly seem to me like the best judge in this regard.
At any rate, it is a somewhat different use of anecdote when one is using it to argue that a sweeping generality is not true than when one is using it to argue that a sweeping generality is true.
Maybe I am bad at expressing myself. I have been told I write too much in each post and tend to water down my message.
So give me this chance to restate what I am trying to say. I am NOT changing my position, merely restating it.
My contention is that we see very few Muslims jumping into the debates about Islam, and that the principal reason for this may well be that Islamic culture and history are based on authoritarian demands for submission (which is what Islam means).
I believe our western concepts of freedom and democracy, so clearly illustrated by the free-wheeling and passionate debates on this SDMB, are simply weird to a person raised in Islamic culture.
Now, if you do not recognize that as a topic for debate, I don’t know what else to tell you. I don’t mean to brag, but in the 12 hours or so since I posted my thread, there have been over 1200 views and over 75 postings, so some sort of debate is going on here.
Those who are in favour of throwing my thread into the pit are simply admitting that they would prefer to throw excrement at me than debate. In fact, I do not intend to even go and see this thread if it is moved to the Pit. You can fling your dung by yourselves.
I prefer reason.
Valteron - As I’ve said previously, I think your point is valid and well made, and should be debated. It was the mud slinging that followed that I felt rather lowered the tone.