CDZ Islamification of The West

[theDoctorisIn]

Because I don't believe what may have occurred in 875 is relivant to today.

Your ancestors might have died of plague, and you wouldn't be here.

How Islam changed medicine: Arab physicians and scholars laid the basis for medical practice in Europe

that does not count.

the pertinent thing is that NO religion is conducive to scientific research and breakthroughs. it is detrimental to the brand. but somehow, it is once again islam being singled out for allegedly not providing contributions to civilization.

Another whopper. Isaac Newton was a devout Christian. First act of the Apollo 11 astronauts on the moon was to take communion.

So individual Muslim scientists don't count, but individual Christian scientists do?

Western civilization is based upon Judeo-Christianity. It's why you can name millions of contributions made by people living there and none in Islamic cultures.

Many Islamic nations even outlaw poetry.

There's no such thing as "Judeo-Christianity".

Most of European history was based on Christians persecuting and slaughtering Jews.

The term "Judeo-Christianity" didn't even exist until the 40s, when Christians starting feeling bad for Jews after Hitler murdered a bunch of them.

 

[GaryDog]

Because I don't believe what may have occurred in 875 is relivant to today.

Your ancestors might have died of plague, and you wouldn't be here.

How Islam changed medicine: Arab physicians and scholars laid the basis for medical practice in Europe

that does not count.

the pertinent thing is that NO religion is conducive to scientific research and breakthroughs. it is detrimental to the brand. but somehow, it is once again islam being singled out for allegedly not providing contributions to civilization.

Another whopper. Isaac Newton was a devout Christian. First act of the Apollo 11 astronauts on the moon was to take communion.

So individual Muslim scientists don't count, but individual Christian scientists do?

Western civilization is based upon Judeo-Christianity. It's why you can name millions of contributions made by people living there and none in Islamic cultures.

Many Islamic nations even outlaw poetry.

Christianity is restrictive, too. What, you never saw Dirty Dancing?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Because I don't believe what may have occurred in 875 is relivant to today.

Your ancestors might have died of plague, and you wouldn't be here.

How Islam changed medicine: Arab physicians and scholars laid the basis for medical practice in Europe

that does not count.

the pertinent thing is that NO religion is conducive to scientific research and breakthroughs. it is detrimental to the brand. but somehow, it is once again islam being singled out for allegedly not providing contributions to civilization.

Another whopper. Isaac Newton was a devout Christian. First act of the Apollo 11 astronauts on the moon was to take communion.

So individual Muslim scientists don't count, but individual Christian scientists do?

Western civilization is based upon Judeo-Christianity. It's why you can name millions of contributions made by people living there and none in Islamic cultures.

Many Islamic nations even outlaw poetry.

the case to be made here is that the age of enlightenment removed the yoke of religious dogma and thus led to scientific breakthroughs.

 

[Arianrhod]

Isaac Newton was a devout Christian.

Who built upon a knowledge of mathematics and astronomy suppressed by his church but preserved and enhanced by Moorish scholars centuries before he was born.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm still waiting to hear a contribution to civilization Islam has made in the past century.

why the restriction?

Because I don't believe what may have occurred in 875 is relivant to today.

Your ancestors might have died of plague, and you wouldn't be here.

How Islam changed medicine: Arab physicians and scholars laid the basis for medical practice in Europe

that does not count.

the pertinent thing is that NO religion is conducive to scientific research and breakthroughs. it is detrimental to the brand. but somehow, it is once again islam being singled out for allegedly not providing contributions to civilization.

Another whopper. Isaac Newton was a devout Christian. First act of the Apollo 11 astronauts on the moon was to take communion.

As a side note, Isaac Newton has some rather fanciful theological ideas that would have gotten him thrown in prison by his "society" had they been publicly known at the time.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

We can either defend our western liberalism or allow it to disappear under a demographic tide.

Please be specific about what this means.

It means I oppose a quasi-religious ideology that stands rigidly opposed to every liberal principle imaginable.

Feel free to defend it under the misapprehension that your doing so is the sign of a liberal, however.

So, you're against Christian ideology?

Much of it, yes. I am a secular humanist.

I'm intelligent enough to notice the enormous difference between Islam and Christianity, however, especially in regards to the direct teachings of Jesus vis a vis Mohammad.

Do you really think Jesus instructed his warriors to rape women in front of their husbands like Mohammad did?

I swear, there is some sort of mental block with much of the left where the fear of being accused of racism (as has happened to me) is so fierce that people simply shut down the cognitive ability that would otherwise allow them to see the differences between two things.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Can you explain to me why justifying your hatred of an entire religion by the "ideology" you've created and assigned to them is any better or less reprehensible than justifying hatred of an ethnic group by the attributes of their skin color that one has created and assigned to them?

If you do not already know the difference between an ideology and an ethnicity or skin color, it may beyond my ability to teach you.

I see that my point went over your head. I will try again, using shorter sentences.

You seem to have created an "ideology" that you have assigned to all Muslims as a way to justify your apparent hatred of them.
"Racists" create attributes that they then assign to all members of an ethnic group as a way to justify their hatred of them.

Can you explain to me why your position is less reprehensible than that of "racists"?

I was accepted to Stanford.

How about you?

 

[L.K.Eder]

I'm still waiting to hear a contribution to civilization Islam has made in the past century.

why the restriction?

Because I don't believe what may have occurred in 875 is relivant to today.

Your ancestors might have died of plague, and you wouldn't be here.

How Islam changed medicine: Arab physicians and scholars laid the basis for medical practice in Europe

that does not count.

the pertinent thing is that NO religion is conducive to scientific research and breakthroughs. it is detrimental to the brand. but somehow, it is once again islam being singled out for allegedly not providing contributions to civilization.

That was posted in answer to an ignorant insistence that Muslims haven't contributed anything to history. That the poster in question kept narrowing the time-frame only made his bigotry more obvious, and that much more amusing.

But you've added another dimension - i.e., that while religion per se is not conducive to science, the Moors did nothing to impede the proliferation of science. As a consequence, the wisdom of the Classicists (which Christianity was busy suppressing or destroying because it was pagan) was preserved and built upon. The mathematics and astronomy of today emerged from that continuum.

I wonder whether Weatherman objects to the use of Indo-Arabic numerals?

i agree completely.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Can you explain to me why justifying your hatred of an entire religion by the "ideology" you've created and assigned to them is any better or less reprehensible than justifying hatred of an ethnic group by the attributes of their skin color that one has created and assigned to them?

If you do not already know the difference between an ideology and an ethnicity or skin color, it may beyond my ability to teach you.

I see that my point went over your head. I will try again, using shorter sentences.

You seem to have created an "ideology" that you have assigned to all Muslims as a way to justify your apparent hatred of them.
"Racists" create attributes that they then assign to all members of an ethnic group as a way to justify their hatred of them.

Can you explain to me why your position is less reprehensible than that of "racists"?

I was accepted to Stanford.

How about you?

A Stanfurd man, are you?

I graduated from Cal.


(Go Bears!)

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I was accepted to Stanford.

Hardly to take courses in "How to Despise an Entire Group of People Based on the Reprehensible Behavior of a Tiny Minority."

That sentence makes little sense as constructed, but I oppose an ideology that stands firmly against western, liberal values.

Do you have absolutely no understanding of the tenets of this ideology?

 

[Arianrhod]

I was accepted to Stanford.

Hardly to take courses in "How to Despise an Entire Group of People Based on the Reprehensible Behavior of a Tiny Minority."

That sentence makes little sense as constructed.

I'll gladly deconstruct it for you. Where did you get confused?

I oppose an ideology that stands firmly against western, liberal values.

Do you have absolutely no understanding of the tenets of this ideology?

So you want to talk about ISIL again? Well, let me know when you get back on topic.

Meanwhile, may I ask your major? (Oh, please say something like "aeronautics" or "engineering" or "mathematics" or...)

 

[L.K.Eder]

I was accepted to Stanford.

Hardly to take courses in "How to Despise an Entire Group of People Based on the Reprehensible Behavior of a Tiny Minority."

That sentence makes little sense as constructed, but I oppose an ideology that stands firmly against western, liberal values.

Do you have absolutely no understanding of the tenets of this ideology?

what ideology, islam per se, sunni, shia, wahhabism? be specific.

 

[Carla_Danger]

We can either defend our western liberalism or allow it to disappear under a demographic tide.

Please be specific about what this means.

It means I oppose a quasi-religious ideology that stands rigidly opposed to every liberal principle imaginable.

Feel free to defend it under the misapprehension that your doing so is the sign of a liberal, however.

So, you're against Christian ideology?

Much of it, yes. I am a secular humanist.

I'm intelligent enough to notice the enormous difference between Islam and Christianity, however, especially in regards to the direct teachings of Jesus vis a vis Mohammad.

Do you really think Jesus instructed his warriors to rape women in front of their husbands like Mohammad did?

I swear, there is some sort of mental block with much of the left where the fear of being accused of racism (as has happened to me) is so fierce that people simply shut down the cognitive ability that would otherwise allow them to see the differences between two things.

That's kinda weird...to compare which fake Gawds are the meanest. We've got the Christian Taliban and moslem Taliban, with competing gawds as inventions of men who wrote competing versions of "holy texts". Even Gawd Jr was pro slavery and seemed fine with mass murder. He certainly lacked in family values, and yes there are even parts of the Bible that allows rape, depending on the circumstances.

I'm not worried about being accused of racism. That's not something I've had to deal with.

 

[pillars]

I'm still waiting to hear a contribution to civilization Islam has made in the past century.

Well, here's a friend of mine:

Omar M. Yaghi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will admit that his discoveries are well over my head, but from what I understand, he's won a number of important awards and is a co-director at one of the largest DoE/DoD National Laboratories.

I didn't say a Muslim, I said Islamic society. I know several Muslims, and they can prosper in the Western Culture.

Societies don't make discoveries, people do. Your argument is flawed from the get go.

 

[pillars]

"Societies" don't make scientific discoveries, people do.

Name one scientific breakthrough in an Islamic nation then.
Let's keep it to the past 200 years.

Why?

I'm not talking about "Islamic nations".

Topic is Islamification of the West.

So yes, name one scientific breakthrough in an Islamic nation.

No, I don't think I will. Because it's entirely irrelevant to any point that I'm trying to make.

As I said on the first page of this thread, "Islamification" is a bugaboo of the weak-minded and fearful. It's a meaningless term.

No one in this thread is suggesting that western nations become "Islamic nations".

Islamification of the world is the primary goal of Islam just as Christianity is the goal of Christians.

Only one murders to obtain that goal.

Christians don't have to kill the pagan natives in countries around the world where they have already done so like the US, Canada, Central America, South America, the Caribbean and Africa. Do you not realize the people in those places were converted at sword point? Or gun point?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

A Stanfurd man, are you?

I graduated from Cal.


(Go Bears!)

and you think opposition to an ideology is an act of racism, do you?

CDZ violation removed.

An ideology is either chosen freely or it isn't. If you believe in freedom of thought, then you need to realize that ideologies chosen freely should be subject to disapproval without scurrilous charges of racism. If you believe this one ideology is not chosen freely, then that very fact should lead you to criticize it if you actually believe in freedom of thought.

Considering the apostasy laws wherever Islam prevails, the question shouldn't be why I oppose it, but why don't you?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

A Stanfurd man, are you?

I graduated from Cal.


(Go Bears!)

and you think opposition to an ideology is an act of racism, do you?

CDZ violation removed.

An ideology is either chosen freely or it isn't. If you believe in freedom of thought, then you need to realize that ideologies chosen freely should be subject to disapproval without scurrilous charges of racism. If you believe this one ideology is not chosen freely, then that very fact should lead you to criticize it if you actually believe in freedom of thought.

Considering the apostasy laws wherever Islam prevails, the question shouldn't be why I oppose it, but why don't you?

You're not really getting the hang of the whole "Clean Debate Zone" thing, are you?

I have explained my analogy repeatedly, your constant mischaracterizations of it notwithstanding. You are welcome to "oppose" whatever ideology you want, the comparison to "racism" comes into play when you decide to assign that ideology to an entire religion of people in order to justify hatred against them.

From what I'm seeing of your argument, you are claiming that you don't hate Muslims, just an "ideology" that in your eyes they all share.

How is that any different from saying "I don't have black people, I just hate criminals - and all black people are criminals"?

There is a chance, of course that I'm missing your point. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

A Stanfurd man, are you?

I graduated from Cal.


(Go Bears!)

and you think opposition to an ideology is an act of racism, do you?

CDZ violation removed.

An ideology is either chosen freely or it isn't. If you believe in freedom of thought, then you need to realize that ideologies chosen freely should be subject to disapproval without scurrilous charges of racism. If you believe this one ideology is not chosen freely, then that very fact should lead you to criticize it if you actually believe in freedom of thought.

Considering the apostasy laws wherever Islam prevails, the question shouldn't be why I oppose it, but why don't you?

You're not really getting the hang of the whole "Clean Debate Zone" thing, are you?

I have explained my analogy repeatedly, your constant mischaracterizations of it notwithstanding. You are welcome to "oppose" whatever ideology you want, the comparison to "racism" comes into play when you decide to assign that ideology to an entire religion of people in order to justify hatred against them.

From what I'm seeing of your argument, you are claiming that you don't hate Muslims, just an "ideology" that in your eyes they all share.

How is that any different from saying "I don't have black people, I just hate criminals - and all black people are criminals"?

There is a chance, of course that I'm missing your point. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are not only missing my point, but going out of your way to try to characterize me in very self-serving ways.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

A Stanfurd man, are you?

I graduated from Cal.


(Go Bears!)

and you think opposition to an ideology is an act of racism, do you?

CDZ violation removed.

An ideology is either chosen freely or it isn't. If you believe in freedom of thought, then you need to realize that ideologies chosen freely should be subject to disapproval without scurrilous charges of racism. If you believe this one ideology is not chosen freely, then that very fact should lead you to criticize it if you actually believe in freedom of thought.

Considering the apostasy laws wherever Islam prevails, the question shouldn't be why I oppose it, but why don't you?

You're not really getting the hang of the whole "Clean Debate Zone" thing, are you?

I have explained my analogy repeatedly, your constant mischaracterizations of it notwithstanding. You are welcome to "oppose" whatever ideology you want, the comparison to "racism" comes into play when you decide to assign that ideology to an entire religion of people in order to justify hatred against them.

From what I'm seeing of your argument, you are claiming that you don't hate Muslims, just an "ideology" that in your eyes they all share.

How is that any different from saying "I don't have black people, I just hate criminals - and all black people are criminals"?

There is a chance, of course that I'm missing your point. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are not only missing my point, but going out of your way to try to characterize me in very self-serving ways.

Then make your point, and explain how I'm wrong.

Am I wrong in saying that you believe all Muslims to share an "ideology"?
Am I wrong in saying that you are using your "opposition" to that "ideology" to paint all Muslims with the same brush?

What part of your argument do I have incorrect?

 

[Carla_Danger]

That's kinda weird...to compare which fake Gawds are the meanest. We've got the Christian Taliban and moslem Taliban, with competing gawds as inventions of men who wrote competing versions of "holy texts". Even Gawd Jr was pro slavery and seemed fine with mass murder. He certainly lacked in family values, and yes there are even parts of the Bible that allows rape, depending on the circumstances.

I'm not worried about being accused of racism. That's not something I've had to deal with.

The ability to discriminate between one thing and another isn't "weird", but simply the product of a mind capable of discerning the differences.

As to your lack of concerns about charges of racism, I believe you. That is what political correctness is all about, after all.

I am more of a free thinker at heart, so I will accept all the pitchforks and torches that come with responding with heresy to the true believer.

One thing my free thinking mind can differentiate on is that we're not talking about terrorists in this thread. The subject is a particular religion, and their right to celebrate a religious event, along with the fear that we might have to look at them on our streets.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX