Islam produces defective thinking

[Patriot]

I’ve read four neutral-to-pro-Islam books in the past 45 days, read many chapters of a dozen+ other books on Islam, perused many pro-Islam sites, and have come to the conclusion that somehow Islam itself produces defective thinking.

I’m glad I found this article by Dr. Babu Suseelan, a Professor of Clinical Psychology in Pennsylvaniam because it articulates scientifically my findings and augments my conclusions.

Per Dr. Suseelan, typical Islamic thinking errors include:

* Polarized or all-or-nothing-thinking (e.g.: believers and non-believers, daru-ul-Islam, dar-ul-harb)
* Catastrophic Thinking (all infidels will go to hell)
* Discounting the positive, accentuate the negative (all kafirs are trying to get Muslims)
* Emotional reasoning (emotional justification for bombing, beheading, terrorism)
* Labeling (putting a global label on non-believers as kafirs)
* Minimization (blame the victim, denial, alibi)
* Mind Reading (Muslims know what non-Muslims are thinking)
* Mental Filter (Failure to see things holistically)
* Overgeneralization (making sweeping negative conclusions: Jews are pigs, Christians are rats)
* Personalization (Muslims believe Kafirs are behaving negatively because of Islam)
* Tunnel Vision (seeing things only in the Islamic way)

Pathways to Jihadi Terrorism by Dr. Suseelan:


Jihadi terrorism is as old as Islam. Jihad war, death and destruction have followed in the wake of Islam for hundreds of years. Ancient Egypt, Greece, Spain, Persia, India and several societies have experienced the deadly Islamic conquest. Now Jihadi terrorism has propelled to dangerous proportions and is a major threat to public health and world peace. Jihadi terrorists are said to have the unique ability to perpetuate their deadly terrorism wreaking havoc in every city in the world. It's destructive impact on the economy, public health and public safety is widespread, and on the increase.

Sensational Jihadi terrorism, mass riots, violence, beheading, suicide bombing and plane hijacking are under constant media scrutiny. Jihadi terrorism is also a compelling subject for terrorism scholars, social scientists and security planners. Nevertheless, agreement on the important underlying causes has been elusive and inconsistent. Liberal left wing social scientists attribute Jihadi terrorism as a product of "labeling" and social causes including economic deprivation and interference of non-Islamic countries. They romanticize Jihadi terrorists as involved in protest against social injustice. In their eagerness to promote the irrational doctrine of "political correctness", left wing armchair speculators see Jihadi terrorists as victims of reactionary, reductionist "conspiracy theories" that make the terrorists the real victim of unjust society. For phony, left wing, liberal social scientists, suicide bombing, mass murder, riots, arson and public beheading of non-Muslims by Jihadi terrorists are the negotiated product of formal responses to political injustices.

Numerous empirical evidence and case study analysis of Muslim terrorists proves the unbalance of this equation. Such malicious "politically correct" statement is misleading and mischievous. The unified left wing explanation of Jihadi terrorism as a social phenomenon in the changing political, economic context is false and falls far short of explaining reliable and stable psychological and religious variables influencing Islamic terrorism.

In recent years, studies of risk prediction and identification of both static and dynamic factors associated with Jihadi terrorism have provided a clear understanding of the problem. Empirically based investigations of psychological factors on Jihadi terrorists have indicated important cognitive and behavioral variables acting as pathways for Jihadi terrorism. Focused studies have revealed unusual ways of Jihadi's thinking, asocial attitudes, cruelty, and indifference to the feelings of victims, paranoia and aggressive hostility.

Read More >> (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011802.php)

[sub_zer0]

No doubt it does produce this type of mentality.

[burntgorilla]

So, basically the same with any religion, if you take it too far? You only have to look at the threads in this folder to see defective thinking based on religion.

[AgentM]

So, basically the same with any religion, if you take it too far? You only have to look at the threads in this folder to see defective thinking based on religion.

I agree. Considering that religion tells people what to believe, that will hinder ones critical thinking skills, if one takes religion over-zealously/too literally. It doesnt matter what the religion is.

[sub_zer0]

I agree. Considering that religion tells people what to believe, that will hinder ones critical thinking skills, if one takes religion over-zealously/too literally. It doesnt matter what the religion is.

Where in the Bible is it dangerous to understand what is meant, by how the text presents itself?

[Nuke the Oil]

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live? All of the stoning and slavery bits?

[Sidgaf]

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?
Exodus 22:18

In the original Hebrew manuscript, the author used the word m'khashepah to describe the person who should be killed. The word means a woman who uses spoken spells to harm others - e.g. causing their death or loss of property. Clearly "evil sorceress" or "woman who does evil magic" would be the most accurate phrases in today's English usage for this verse.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_bibl2.htm

So what we have here is someone who use black / dark magic shall be kill oppose to those who use white magic who do no harm.

"All of the stoning and slavery bits"
I can't find this, need area and verse

[steveksux]

That kind of defective thinking can happen with any religion. Just look at the 6000 year old earth anti-evolutionists.

Those Christians don't even give Christians a free pass into Heaven. They're denouncing the Christians who believe in evolution as doomed to hell, following false doctrine, etc. You know, the 90% of Christians that believe in evolution.

Randy

[burntgorilla]

Where in the Bible is it dangerous to understand what is meant, by how the text presents itself?

Well, those points above can be applied to your religious thinking.

[Nuke the Oil]

Exodus 22:18

In the original Hebrew manuscript, the author used the word m'khashepah to describe the person who should be killed. The word means a woman who uses spoken spells to harm others - e.g. causing their death or loss of property. Clearly "evil sorceress" or "woman who does evil magic" would be the most accurate phrases in today's English usage for this verse.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_bibl2.htm

So what we have here is someone who use black / dark magic shall be kill oppose to those who use white magic who do no harm.

So it is OK to go around killing "sorceresses"? Why not sorcerers I wonder?

I can't find this, need area and verse

I think it's in the second half of Leviticus. That chapter is a grab-bag of crazy crackers... Ah, it's in Leviticus 25. And I found this list of slave-verses:

http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html

[sub_zer0]

Exodus 22:18

In the original Hebrew manuscript, the author used the word m'khashepah to describe the person who should be killed. The word means a woman who uses spoken spells to harm others - e.g. causing their death or loss of property. Clearly "evil sorceress" or "woman who does evil magic" would be the most accurate phrases in today's English usage for this verse.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_bibl2.htm

So what we have here is someone who use black / dark magic shall be kill oppose to those who use white magic who do no harm.

No, you are wrong, what we have here is a, "woman who does evil magic" as you plainly say it should be in English. The word "evil" and its meanings can range from morally disgusting acts all the way down to physically causing harm to somebody.

The Bible teaches to hate evil in all its forms and to not accept it at any cost. Having said that, we are to be gentle in our approach in dealing with it until it is to much. Please don't tell you me you would let evil slip by?

That kind of defective thinking can happen with any religion. Just look at the 6000 year old earth anti-evolutionists.

Those Christians don't even give Christians a free pass into Heaven. They're denouncing the Christians who believe in evolution as doomed to hell, following false doctrine, etc. You know, the 90% of Christians that believe in evolution.

Randy

Again, misrepresenting what I am saying, when will it end? All I have said is that Christians who believe in evolution and not creation means that they are not following Christ in that regard. Nobody said anything about them being doomed to hell.

Defective thinking happens when you think defectively Randy.

[NiteGuy]

Again, misrepresenting what I am saying, when will it end? All I have said is that Christians who believe in evolution and not creation means that they are not following Christ in that regard. Nobody said anything about them being doomed to hell.

Defective thinking happens when you think defectively Randy.

Actually, Sub, I didn't see him accuse you of anything. Guilty conscience, maybe?

And not to put too fine a point on it, but I have been in conversations with a small number of Christians who have said straight out, that if I don't believe just the way their particular version of Christianity says to, that I am condemned to hell. Both young-Earth believers and others as well. Doesn't matter that that's not what the Bible says.

So, Randy is right. That kind of defective thinking can permeate any religion. Any religion at all.

[Cedars]

I think, rather, that it is the pride and arrogance of members of ANY religious affiliation which can produce defective thinking. No one religious affiliation is guilty of this -- defective thinking can happen to anyone (which, of course, does not exclude Christians).

[sub_zer0]

Actually, Sub, I didn't see him accuse you of anything. Guilty conscience, maybe?

And not to put too fine a point on it, but I have been in conversations with a small number of Christians who have said straight out, that if I don't believe just the way their particular version of Christianity says to, that I am condemned to hell. Both young-Earth believers and others as well. Doesn't matter that that's not what the Bible says.

So, Randy is right. That kind of defective thinking can permeate any religion. Any religion at all.

Sure it does matter what the Bible says.

[Dangerrmouse]

Sure it does matter what the Bible says.


More concrete thinking there sub. Niteguy was pointing out that those Christians who would see him damned for not sharing their narrow creed were not supported by what the Bible says.

[sub_zer0]

More concrete thinking there sub. Niteguy was pointing out that those Christians who would see him damned for not sharing their narrow creed were not supported by what the Bible says.

Indeed that is what I am saying. It matters what the Bible says and what it doesn't. For those Christians to not realize that what they were saying is NOT supported by the Bible is sad.

[Cedars]

What NiteGuy was saying (and Dangermouse clarified) is that not all Christians agree with your INTERPRETATION of scripture. NiteGuy was not saying that the Bible didn't matter, just that all Christians do not always agree on interpretation of scripture.

[NiteGuy]

Indeed that is what I am saying. It matters what the Bible says and what it doesn't. For those Christians to not realize that what they were saying is NOT supported by the Bible is sad.

But here's where the "defective" thinking comes in, Sub.

They were all able to quote "selective" passages from the Bible, to show that what they believed was correct and true. Just as the Imam's "select" passages from the Quran to prove that their position is the true one.

My point is, it's not just Islam that can produce "defective" thinking. All it takes is selective passage quoting by the so-called church leader(s), and some folks willing to believe, and follow without thinking critically, and discovering the "truth" on their own.

That's how people like David Koresh, or Jim Jones, or the Religious leader currently in Iran, or even some more "main street" folks like the guy who protests at soldiers funerals, or even Pat Robertson get to be so noticeable and eventually powerful. They find Biblical passages that can be twisted, and followers willing to trail along.

[Dangerrmouse]

Clue. What do shepherds lead?

[julierep]

But here's where the "defective" thinking comes in, Sub.

They were all able to quote "selective" passages from the Bible, to show that what they believed was correct and true. Just as the Imam's "select" passages from the Quran to prove that their position is the true one.

My point is, it's not just Islam that can produce "defective" thinking. All it takes is selective passage quoting by the so-called church leader(s), and some folks willing to believe, and follow without thinking critically, and discovering the "truth" on their own.

That's how people like David Koresh, or Jim Jones, or the Religious leader currently in Iran, or even some more "main street" folks like the guy who protests at soldiers funerals, or even Pat Robertson get to be so noticeable and eventually powerful. They find Biblical passages that can be twisted, and followers willing to trail along.

Not to pin point or anything but everyone of us has some form of defective thinking. To only put it on religious people is very much defective thinking.

[julierep]

Clue. What do shepherds lead?

"The Lord is my shepard, I shall not want..." I wonder why sheep follow their shepards? Is it because they know that because they have learned to trust them through trial and error, they will be provided for?

[Dangerrmouse]

"The Lord is my shepard, I shall not want..." I wonder why sheep follow their shepards? Is it because they know that because they have learned to trust them through trial and error, they will be provided for?

Perhaps they prefer the certainty and security of having someone think on their behalf.

[towski]

"The Lord is my shepard, I shall not want..." I wonder why sheep follow their shepards? Is it because they know that because they have learned to trust them through trial and error, they will be provided for?


Or because they are domesticated animals, incapable of independent thought, and possess no faculties for logic and reason? ;)

[julierep]

Perhaps they prefer the certainty and security of having someone think on their behalf.

I guess the shepard has given the sheep enough reason to trust them, otherwise, he wouldnt be a very good sheep herder. Likewise, God has given me enough reason to trust Him, otherwise I wouldnt be following. I certainly think for myself and have enough security in myself. That is just a blantent attempt to ridicule someone. Surely, one cannot be that uneducated to seriously think that someone cannot think for themselves. This world would be in a heap of trouble if what you say was true.

[julierep]

Or because they are domesticated animals, incapable of independent thought, and possess no faculties for logic and reason? ;)

Or they could just run away from the shepard. Certainly they have the ability to do so.

[Sidgaf]

So, basically the same with any religion, if you take it too far? You only have to look at the threads in this folder to see defective thinking based on religion.

Anytime someone comes down on another religion claiming Christianity is above the rest. I just remind them of Fred Phelps and his horde of inbreed misfits.

[Patriot]

The topic is "Islam", and few are taking this thread seriously. To prove the thesis of my 1st post, I'll quote a Muslim Ph.D who is saying what I'm saying. In short, you can't cure something until you name it, and Islam need's a lot of therapy.

This work, Crisis in the Muslim Mind, is an abridgement and translation of an original Arabic text of high literary style. The subject matter, which is not always easy to follow, is aimed toward the initiation of serious discussion among Muslim intellectuals regarding the roots of the malaise of contemporary Muslim society. Such a work is undoubtedly difficult for anyone other than the author himself to translate. Unfortunately, I had neither the time nor the opportunity to undertake it myself. However, as I have full confidence in the abilities of Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo and those who edited and reviewed the work, I am confident that the message of the original has been conveyed.

The translation comes out at a time when the Muslim Ummah finds itself in the wake of the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the bipolar world order. Throughout the world, the adversaries of Islam continue their aggression against Muslims, in places like Bosnia, Kashmir, Kurdistan, southern Sudan, Somalia, the Philippines, Burma, Palestine, Afghanistan, Algeria, and in many other places. Such dreadful conditions serve only to magnify the Ummah's crisis. While Muslims may react to these situations in the short term, we must never lose sight of the fact that the malaise lies in our own weakness and incompetency. Perhaps the most striking difference between the early Muslim generations and those that have followed is that the early Muslims were raised to be strong, both physically and psychologically. The dynamics of the Prophet's instructions (to strut and show their strength) to those performing tawafbefore the conquest of Makkah were not lost on the early Muslims.

This book deals briefly with issues of methodology, the relationship between the Qur'an and the Sunnah, the time and space dimension in the Sunnah, and the rift between the political and the religious-intellectual leadership of the Ummah. It is the contention of this work that while the political leadership used force to keep the masses in order, the intellectual leadership used emotional and psychological means to keep them in check. The net result of such pressure was the creation of inhibitions within the Muslim mind, which caused the mentality of the Ummah and its character to develop in such a way that it lacked initiative and the ability to innovate and think for itself.

At the present time, the Ummah clearly needs to address these problems and to deal with them openly and honestly. As a precondition, it is essential that the Ummah as a whole overcome its reservations and superstitions in regard to understanding and reinterpreting both the Qur'an and the Sunnah. In the final analysis, however, it is the education and upbringing of new generations of Muslims that must be our first concern.

The responsibility for instituting the needed change lies squarely on the shoulders of Muslim intellectuals. These are the ones who must break the psychological chains that have bound the Ummah for the past several centuries. They are the ones who must diagnose the malady for what it really is and then prescribe the right cure. Only then will Muslims be able to actualize the true Islamic way of life represented by Tawhid, khilafah, and brotherhood. Finally, once Muslims have regained their dynamism, courage, and morality they will not only improve their own lot, but contribute positively to world civilization as well.

'AbdulHamid A. AbuSulayman
1414AH/1993AC
Herndon, Virginia USA
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/crisis_in_the_muslim_mind/author.html

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/crisis_in_the_muslim_mind/preface_to_the_english_edition.html

[neo of the mind]

"The Lord is my shepard, I shall not want..." I wonder why sheep follow their shepards? Is it because they know that because they have learned to trust them through trial and error, they will be provided for?


julierep - I like how you answered the above.

Those that say they "think for themselves", fail to remember all the science books they read and people they listened to to form the opinion they now hold to be the truth. It's funny how they consider THAT thinking for themselves but exclude that process from Christians.

If there is ever a debate on this forum by an Atheist that didn't come to that knowledge by external means, then they would be the first Atheist to truly have "thought for themselves"...can anybody here claim that? If not, then your "I think for myself" argument falls flat.

[neo of the mind]

Anytime someone comes down on another religion claiming Christianity is above the rest. I just remind them of Fred Phelps and his horde of inbreed misfits.


It is true no doubt that people of all religions have made claims not consistent with the Religion itself. What is also true is that there is only one truth, not multiple truths. If a Christian or a Muslim or a fill in the blank, didn't think their Religion was not the sole truth, then I would question their belief in that Religion.

On a side note, if you use this logic to denounce Christians or people of different faiths, then you would also have to use this logic towards the Atheist, who's religion is Science.

[lord tammerlain]

It is true no doubt that people of all religions have made claims not consistent with the Religion itself. What is also true is that there is only one truth, not multiple truths. If a Christian or a Muslim or a fill in the blank, didn't think their Religion was not the sole truth, then I would question their belief in that Religion.

On a side note, if you use this logic to denounce Christians or people of different faiths, then you would also have to use this logic towards the Atheist, who's religion is Science.
Except Science is not a religion. Math is not a religion. Neither is agriculture (although many farmer's pray for good weather).

[towski]

Or they could just run away from the shepard. Certainly they have the ability to do so.

Weird that shephards use sheep dogs to prevent that from happening...

[Sidgaf]

It is true no doubt that people of all religions have made claims not consistent with the Religion itself. What is also true is that there is only one truth, not multiple truths. If a Christian or a Muslim or a fill in the blank, didn't think their Religion was not the sole truth, then I would question their belief in that Religion.

On a side note, if you use this logic to denounce Christians or people of different faiths, then you would also have to use this logic towards the Atheist, who's religion is Science.

No I don't use to denounce (fill in the believe system), I use it on fanatics of (fill in the believe system)

[Izdaari]

And not to put too fine a point on it, but I have been in conversations with a small number of Christians who have said straight out, that if I don't believe just the way their particular version of Christianity says to, that I am condemned to hell. Both young-Earth believers and others as well. Doesn't matter that that's not what the Bible says.

So, Randy is right. That kind of defective thinking can permeate any religion. Any religion at all.It can. But Christians who take that line are heretics and can be proven so by means of the Bible. In orthodox Christianity, salvation depends on Jesus' death on the cross to atone for our sins, and has nothing to do with anything in the Book of Genesis. And of course, if they are Christians and they don't believe what the Bible says, that contradiction can be pointed out to them, and it should bother them a lot. Can Islamofascists be proven wrong by means of the Koran? Not to the best of my knowledge.

[Izdaari]

Except Science is not a religion. Math is not a religion. Neither is agriculture (although many farmer's pray for good weather).
No, of course not. But although science ought not to be a religion, people are capable of worshipping just about anything, and believing in nothing is psychologically difficult for human beings, so those who reject any explicit belief system have a tendency to form another, even though they may not even recognize that they're doing so.

[FlyingGuineapig]

If mathematics is a belief system, it's the only belief system that I know of which openly proves that it cannot be both consistent and complete - most other belief systems demonstrate this but cannot prove it. :lol:

[steveksux]

It can. But Christians who take that line are heretics and can be proven so by means of the Bible. In orthodox Christianity, salvation depends on Jesus' death on the cross to atone for our sins, and has nothing to do with anything in the Book of Genesis. And of course, if they are Christians and they don't believe what the Bible says, that contradiction can be pointed out to them, and it should bother them a lot. Can Islamofascists be proven wrong by means of the Koran? Not to the best of my knowledge.Why not? Many claim Islam is a religion of peace and the killings are contrary to the teaching of the Koran. Not sure how this is different than the bible exposing Phelps or other Christian extremists as a heretic....

Randy

[Izdaari]

Why not? Many claim Islam is a religion of peace and the killings are contrary to the teaching of the Koran. Not sure how this is different than the bible exposing Phelps or other Christian extremists as a heretic....

RandyIn principle it isn't different. But I haven't seen it done, though I would very much like to see it.

[burntgorilla]

The topic is "Islam", and few are taking this thread seriously. To prove the thesis of my 1st post, I'll quote a Muslim Ph.D who is saying what I'm saying. In short, you can't cure something until you name it, and Islam need's a lot of therapy.


What is specifically bad about Islam? Everything you've posted can be applied to any religion in the hands of a nutjob. I find your attempts to make Islam out to be somehow especially worse a bit worrying.

[lord tammerlain]

No, of course not. But although science ought not to be a religion, people are capable of worshipping just about anything, and believing in nothing is psychologically difficult for human beings, so those who reject any explicit belief system have a tendency to form another, even though they may not even recognize that they're doing so.


I have yet to see anyone worship at the alter of science, obsessed by it sure.

[Izdaari]

I have yet to see anyone worship at the alter of science, obsessed by it sure.Obsessed by it is good enough. If someone passes into the realm of what Eric Hoffer termed "True Believers", they're worshipping as far as I'm concerned. When you immantize the eschaton, you've got a substitute religion, whether you call your object of worship a god or not.

[steveksux]

In principle it isn't different. But I haven't seen it done, though I would very much like to see it.I've seen it a few times, but the press doesn't like to cover it. Arabs speaking common sense isn't as newsworthy as Arabs shouting "Death to America" with bombs strapped to their chests burning American flags and shooting AK's in the air... :(

Randy

[sub_zer0]

I've seen it a few times, but the press doesn't like to cover it. Arabs speaking common sense isn't as newsworthy as Arabs shouting "Death to America" with bombs strapped to their chests... :(

Randy

Same goes for Christians.

[steveksux]

Same goes for Christians.Not really. The crazies do get the most coverage, but the difference is that nobody with an ounce of sense smears all Christians with the likes of lunatics like Phelps and Robertson.

Randy

[Izdaari]

Not really. The crazies do get the most coverage, but the difference is that nobody with an ounce of sense smears all Christians with the likes of lunatics like Phelps and Robertson.

RandyAgreed. But I would also not put Phelps and Robertson in the same boat. Phelps is an outright heretic, whose teachings are clearly contrary to the Bible. Robertson is a mostly orthodox eccentric with his own media platform.

[lord tammerlain]

Agreed. But I would also not put Phelps and Robertson in the same boat. Phelps is an outright heretic, whose teachings are clearly contrary to the Bible. Robertson is a mostly orthodox eccentric with his own media platform.

Robertson is still a nutjob, a lying nutjob who advocates murder, thinks god is punishing the US with Hurricanes

[steveksux]

Agreed. But I would also not put Phelps and Robertson in the same boat. Phelps is an outright heretic, whose teachings are clearly contrary to the Bible. Robertson is a mostly orthodox eccentric with his own media platform.I was all set to agree with you till I read thisRobertson is still a nutjob, a lying nutjob who advocates murder, thinks god is punishing the US with Hurricanesbecause of homosexuality, if I remember right.

Claiming God is using natural disasters vs IED's to punish the US for its homosexuality suddenly seems like a distinction without a difference.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

Claiming God is using natural disasters vs IED's to punish the US for its homosexuality suddenly seems like a distinction without a difference.

Randy

Indeed.

[neo of the mind]

Indeed.

edit: deleted, wrong quote.

[neo of the mind]

I was all set to agree with you till I read thisbecause of homosexuality, if I remember right.

Claiming God is using natural disasters vs IED's to punish the US for its homosexuality suddenly seems like a distinction without a difference.

Randy


The difference being that only God currently can create natural disasters such as the Hurricane, where anybody can make IEDs.

[sub_zer0]

The difference being that only God currently can create natural disasters such as the Hurricane, where anybody can make IEDs.

Indeed. heh

[brainpan]

The difference being that only God currently can create natural disasters such as the Hurricane, where anybody can make IEDs.How to know which natural disasters are natural and which ones are the work of a serial-killing "all benevolent" god?

Strange that God sends earthquakes exactly where we would expect to see them and hurricanes exactly where we would expect to see them as well. Help me out neo/sub, which acts of mass murder come from God, how can we "dust for His fingerprints?"

[Izdaari]

How to know which natural disasters are natural and which ones are the work of a serial-killing "all benevolent" god?

Strange that God sends earthquakes exactly where we would expect to see them and hurricanes exactly where we would expect to see them as well. Help me out neo/sub, which acts of mass murder come from God, how can we "dust for His fingerprints?"Or maybe Robertson is just a wackjob? That'd be my bet. I still say he's not an outright heretic like Phelps though.

[brainpan]

Or maybe Robertson is just a wackjob? That'd be my bet. I still say he's not an outright heretic like Phelps though.Or that. :)

[steveksux]

The difference being that only God currently can create natural disasters such as the Hurricane, where anybody can make IEDs.God working through nature, God working through man. Still say its a distinction without any relevant differences. Its all the hand of God supposedly. Also in both cases its impossible to tell if it was a natural or God created natural disaster, or a man made or God inspired IED. Hurricanes are not native to Iraq, so God uses whatever tools are available locally. Insurgents in this case.

Randy

[ScummyD]

Islam produces defective thinking
I find it odd that you blame an abstract entity in Islam for the mental shortcommings of people.

Islam "produces" nothing.

Just as guns do not kill people.

[steveksux]

I find it odd that you blame an abstract entity in Islam for the mental shortcommings of people.

Islam "produces" nothing.

Just as guns do not kill people.Interesting twist on the premise of the thread. Reminds me of the old Jif peanut butter commercials.... "Choosy mothers choose Jif" "Defective thinkers choose Islam". Although you can substitute any religion of a sufficiently fundamentalist mindset for Islam without fear of being incorrect.

Randy

[ScummyD]

Reminds me of the old Jif peanut butter commercials.... "Choosy mothers choose Jif" "Defective thinkers choose Islam".
lol

Although you can substitute any religion of a sufficiently fundamentalist mindset for Islam without fear of being incorrect.
Yep. I would submit that you could substitute any doctrine of ideas and values to the same ends as you note.

The topic of the thread is silly.

[Strel]

All extremist/fundamentalist religious beliefs produce defective thinking.

[steveksux]

lol


Yep. I would submit that you could substitute any doctrine of ideas and values to the same ends as you note.

The topic of the thread is silly.
Since when has that had any effect on the life of a thread? :D

Randy

[neo of the mind]

Steveksux said:

"Claiming God is using natural disasters vs IED's to punish the US for its homosexuality suddenly seems like a distinction without a difference."

Where I responded with:

"The difference being that only God currently can create natural disasters such as the Hurricane, where anybody can make IEDs."

Which brainpea responded with:

"How to know which natural disasters are natural and which ones are the work of a serial-killing "all benevolent" god?

Strange that God sends earthquakes exactly where we would expect to see them and hurricanes exactly where we would expect to see them as well. Help me out neo/sub, which acts of mass murder come from God, how can we "dust for His fingerprints?"

and steveksux added:

"God working through nature, God working through man. Still say its a distinction without any relevant differences. Its all the hand of God supposedly. Also in both cases its impossible to tell if it was a natural or God created natural disaster, or a man made or God inspired IED. Hurricanes are not native to Iraq, so God uses whatever tools are available locally. Insurgents in this case."




What I was replying in response to, was that steveksux thinks there is no difference between actions resulting in
deaths caused by IEDs and actions resulting in deaths by a natural disaster. The difference is that God can use people to fulfill his plan, but man has free will and God's plan is fullfilled, DESPITE what man does.

However, man can not, currently (as far as I know ; ) ) cause hurricanes or earthquakes only God can.


brainpea:
""How to know which natural disasters are natural and which ones are the work of a serial-killing "all benevolent" god?" - all natural disasters ultimately are from God, whether you think God directs all of them specifically or if you think the earth system is on autopilot and he intervenes or doesn't at his will. Why do you assume that people who die in a hurricane were murdered? There are justifable reasons for killing people but it is also just a normal reason for somebody's time to die. There is no contract that we are all gauranteed to die peacefully as we sleep.



steveksux - I agree basically with your last statements but I think this statement:

"God working through nature, God working through man. Still say its a distinction without any relevant differences."

....is changed by this statement:

"Also in both cases its impossible to tell if it was a natural or God created natural disaster, or a man made or God inspired IED."

....in the sense that the end result is the same, somebody dying, but the REASON and initiation behind the death is relevant and distinct.

[sub_zer0]

All extremist/fundamentalist religious beliefs produce defective thinking.

How does Christianity produce defective thinking?

[Michele]

dupe....

[Michele]

Oh yes this is extraordinarily comprehensive.... with a couple of changes to the syntax it actually is quite universal.

typical neo conservative, fundamentalist christian and/or americans who perceive themselves as being more patriotic errors in thinking include:

* Polarized or all-or-nothing-thinking
* Catastrophic Thinking (or fear mongering toward an accelleration toward end times)
* Discounting the positive, accentuate the negative (of all outsiders or non believers)
* Emotional reasoning (emotional justification for nuking any country that doesn't conform with the neo conservative agenda)
* Labeling (putting a global label that aims to demonize anyone outside the chosen judeo christian milleniumist and neo liberal idealogue )
* Minimization (blame or criminialize the victim, denial, alibi)
* Mind Reading (neo cons and dominionist christians know what non- neocons and dominist christians are thinking)
* Mental Filter (Failure to see things philologically -- or by way of the law of cause and effect)
* Overgeneralization (making sweeping negative conclusions: Muslims only understand violence, Arabs are cockeroaches)
* Personalization (neo liberals believe "evildoers" are behaving negatively because they hate us for no reason --- fundamentalist christians believe non believers behave negatively because of Christianity)
* Tunnel Vision (seeing things only in the Christian or American way)

[sub_zer0]

Oh yes this is extraordinarily comprehensive.... with a couple of changes to the syntax it actually is quite universal.

typical neo conservative, fundamentalist christian and/or americans who perceive themselves as being more patriotic errors in thinking include:

* Polarized or all-or-nothing-thinking
* Catastrophic Thinking (or fear mongering toward an accelleration toward end times)
* Discounting the positive, accentuate the negative (of all outsiders or non believers)
* Emotional reasoning (emotional justification for nuking any country that doesn't conform with the neo conservative agenda)
* Labeling (putting a global label that aims to demonize on anyone outside the chosen judeo christian neo liberal idealogue )
* Minimization (blame or criminialize the victim, denial, alibi)
* Mind Reading (neo cons and dominionist christians know what non- neocons and dominist christians are thinking)
* Mental Filter (Failure to see things philologically -- or by way of the law of cause and effect)
* Overgeneralization (making sweeping negative conclusions: Muslims only understand violence, Arabs are cockeroaches)
* Personalization (neo liberals believe "evildoers" are behaving negatively because they hate us for no reason --- fundamentalist christians believe non believers behave negatively because of Christianity)
* Tunnel Vision (seeing things only in the Christian or American way)

* Me, being a Christian indeed it is all-or-nothing, but only in regards to my life and to yours! I want to save your life!
* In no way is it a Christian characteristic to be fear-mongering.
* Wrong, merely identifying with God. We are believers, those who are not we try to show that they should believe. Living a Christian life isn't about the negatives.
* What Christian has ever nuked a country? Certainly anybody advocating it needs to think twice.

And the rest, everyday people are just as guilty, and as a matter of fact you are guilty of doing those things to Christians with this post! Most if not all of what was said by you certainly does not reflect the Biblical teaching of how you should live your life for Christ.

Try understanding this enemy of yours (Christians and "neo-cons") first and you would realize that they just want you to feel the same love they do by Christ.

[JoeR]

* What Christian has ever nuked a country?

Truman?

[sub_zer0]

Truman?

I think he was Christian... Indeed, it stopped the war as Japan sucker punched us!

1There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven-- 2A time to give birth and a time to die; A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted. 3A time to kill and a time to heal; A time to tear down and a time to build up. 4A time to weep and a time to laugh; A time to mourn and a time to dance. 5A time to throw stones and a time to gather stones; A time to embrace and a time to shun embracing. 6A time to search and a time to give up as lost; A time to keep and a time to throw away. 7A time to tear apart and a time to sew together; A time to be silent and a time to speak. 8A time to love and a time to hate; A time for war and a time for peace.

It is an error to say that God never supports a war. In a world filled with evil people, sometimes a war is necessary to prevent even greater evil.

[Michele]

I think he was Christian... Indeed, it stopped the war as Japan sucker punched us!



It is an error to say that God never supports a war. In a world filled with evil people, sometimes a war is necessary to prevent even greater evil.

oh yes the old Common good argument that basically can be parsed to justify our own evils as we convince ourselves that they are somehow lesser wherein some can't grasp that our lesser evils are viewed as greater evils by the innocence that fall victim to our own "lesser evildoing."

It strikes me as absurd as that "corruption is good" argument that was raised at one point in the movie Syriana.


actually the error is in believing with no question that any given verse in the Bible is literally Gods word and then going about utilizing mortal interpretation to define anyone that doesn't conform as sinners... like for example how some conservatively "good" christians demonize homosexuals.

but I haven't any desire to get into a circular debate with yet another christian. suffice it to say I agree with strel's one liner just above me on this page of this thread. It is quoted by someone.



All extremist/fundamentalist religious beliefs produce defective thinking.



I would only add that would include nationalistic beliefs as they produce a similar form of extremism that in passing itself off as patriotism can be equally as defective.

[burntgorilla]

How does Christianity produce defective thinking?

Same way as any other religion does. When it's taken too far, of course.

[Strel]

How does Christianity produce defective thinking?

<KIRK>Must resist....temptation............argh</KIRK>

[Strel]

I would only add that would include nationalistic beliefs as they produce a similar form of extremism that in passing itself off as patriotism can be equally as defective.


So true.

[julierep]

Oh yes this is extraordinarily comprehensive.... with a couple of changes to the syntax it actually is quite universal.

typical neo conservative, fundamentalist christian and/or americans who perceive themselves as being more patriotic errors in thinking include:

* Polarized or all-or-nothing-thinking
* Catastrophic Thinking (or fear mongering toward an accelleration toward end times)
* Discounting the positive, accentuate the negative (of all outsiders or non believers)
* Emotional reasoning (emotional justification for nuking any country that doesn't conform with the neo conservative agenda)
* Labeling (putting a global label that aims to demonize anyone outside the chosen judeo christian milleniumist and neo liberal idealogue )
* Minimization (blame or criminialize the victim, denial, alibi)
* Mind Reading (neo cons and dominionist christians know what non- neocons and dominist christians are thinking)
* Mental Filter (Failure to see things philologically -- or by way of the law of cause and effect)
* Overgeneralization (making sweeping negative conclusions: Muslims only understand violence, Arabs are cockeroaches)
* Personalization (neo liberals believe "evildoers" are behaving negatively because they hate us for no reason --- fundamentalist christians believe non believers behave negatively because of Christianity)
* Tunnel Vision (seeing things only in the Christian or American way)

Im assuming you mean only the ones who actually think this way and not including the many (most christians) that dont?? If not, that is quite a generalization you have going there.

[Strel]

* Mental Filter (Failure to see things philologically -- or by way of the law of cause and effect)


This is the one that makes me want to stick forks in my eyes.

[Strel]

How does Christianity produce defective thinking?

It doesn't, per se. Until it begins to disagree with reality.

[steveksux]

Im assuming you mean only the ones who actually think this way and not including the many (most christians) that dont?? If not, that is quite a generalization you have going there.Yup, I think we're only referring to the fringe elements of Islam as well as Christianity here. The terrorists, the Phelps, etc. At least that's who I'm referring to.

Randy

[steveksux]

Truman?Sigh. Its like shooting fish in a barrel.

Randy

[burntgorilla]

Im assuming you mean only the ones who actually think this way and not including the many (most christians) that dont?? If not, that is quite a generalization you have going there.

I would guess they did, since "fundamentalist Christian" was specifically mentioned.

[nogoodname90]

I guess the shepard has given the sheep enough reason to trust them, otherwise, he wouldnt be a very good sheep herder. Likewise, God has given me enough reason to trust Him, otherwise I wouldnt be following. I certainly think for myself and have enough security in myself. That is just a blantent attempt to ridicule someone. Surely, one cannot be that uneducated to seriously think that someone cannot think for themselves. This world would be in a heap of trouble if what you say was true.
Sheep are also good for brainwashing like in animal farm :eek:

[ScummyD]

Sheep are also good for brainwashing like in animal farm
Have you read Animal Farm?

[nogoodname90]

Have you read Animal Farm?
yes The sheeps are brain washed by the pig Squeeler and Napolean. Oh crap i frogot. The sheeps were just stupid and followed Napolean and Squeeler. Nvm

[neo of the mind]

"actually the error is in believing with no question that any given verse in the Bible is literally Gods word and then going about utilizing mortal interpretation to define anyone that doesn't conform as sinners... like for example how some conservatively "good" christians demonize homosexuals."

Actually, your error is that you don't understand the concept of "belief" in something or at least you don't understand the Christian concept.

You do realize that actions, verbal or physical are a result of beliefs? I believe that if I jump off a 100 story building in New York city that I will die when I hit the pavement. You are castigating me for professing, what I believe to be true.

[neo of the mind]

Sheep are also good for brainwashing like in animal farm :eek:

So, are we to believe by your statements that non Christians are born with an inate belief structure that required no external influence? You act as if non Christians formed their beliefs all by themselves......

[sub_zer0]

actually the error is in believing with no question that any given verse in the Bible is literally Gods word and then going about utilizing mortal interpretation to define anyone that doesn't conform as sinners... like for example how some conservatively "good" christians demonize homosexuals.

Homosexuality is a sin, therefore not what God wants, that is all. Really nothing more to be said for the Biblical teaching on it unless you start getting into politics.

Christians saying this are not demonizing them, rather utilizing what they hold as their law for their life, namely Jesus Christ, the word of God and its teachings on marriage, and pointing out that homosexuality is not good based upong that.

If a Christian can't say that homosexuality is bad, then who can when basing that type of decision on a belief they hold? We are merely attaching a more deeper reasoning to it, i.e. God. Christians, including me are guilty of sin.

[Dangerrmouse]

Christians, including me are guilty of sin.

Then "let he who is without sin" applies. Leave criticising sinners to the pure.

[Izdaari]

Homosexuality is a sin, therefore not what God wants, that is all. Really nothing more to be said for the Biblical teaching on it unless you start getting into politics.

Christians saying this are not demonizing them, rather utilizing what they hold as their law for their life, namely Jesus Christ, the word of God and its teachings on marriage, and pointing out that homosexuality is not good based upong that.

If a Christian can't say that homosexuality is bad, then who can when basing that type of decision on a belief they hold? We are merely attaching a more deeper reasoning to it, i.e. God. Christians, including me are guilty of sin.Surely you can say that, and as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing at all wrong with your saying so. But other Christians, such as myself, who aren't so sure the scriptures say any such thing, are likely to dispute it.

[julierep]

yes The sheeps are brain washed by the pig Squeeler and Napolean. Oh crap i frogot. The sheeps were just stupid and followed Napolean and Squeeler. Nvm

Well I am neither brain washed or stupid. Instead, I test things. Once I test things and they stand up to the level at which I held them to, I tend to trust my heart on the matter (I feel for the person who always has to question himself, it must be terribly hard). Fortunatley, I can live at peace and not wonder how I got here and where I am going. You may think this is stupid or whatever childish word you want to throw in there, but I find it rather smart. It works for me, and gives me peace and joy. I suggest you try doing the same.

[neo of the mind]

Surely you can say that, and as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing at all wrong with your saying so. But other Christians, such as myself, who aren't so sure the scriptures say any such thing, are likely to dispute it.

I can not comprehend any Christian, regardless of denomination, what Bible version is read or from what culture they come from, could have the opinion that God smiles upon homosexuality. I believe he views it as a sin but Christians, should not hold it up as a sin any more dangerous then other sins of the flesh. Most Christians, as sub_zer0 eludes to, do not view that sin as special. It is and should be focused on when within context of a societal problem though. Example, society and Christians can not wrangle with the AIDS epidemic without homosexuality being a factor of discussion. Just like Adultery must be focused on when discussing divorce rates.

[Dangerrmouse]

I can not comprehend any Christian, regardless of denomination, what Bible version is read or from what culture they come from, could have the opinion that God smiles upon homosexuality. I believe he views it as a sin but Christians, should not hold it up as a sin any more dangerous then other sins of the flesh. Most Christians, as sub_zer0 eludes to, do not view that sin as special. It is and should be focused on when within context of a societal problem though. Example, society and Christians can not wrangle with the AIDS epidemic without homosexuality being a factor of discussion. Just like Adultery must be focused on when discussing divorce rates.

The "safest" people in the "AIDS epidemic" are homosexual women. Does God have a special place in His heart for them, do you think?

[neo of the mind]

The "safest" people in the "AIDS epidemic" are homosexual women. Does God have a special place in His heart for them, do you think?

So if I point out a "group" of people that have an even lower incidence of AIDS infection, because there are, then they would have an even more special place in God's heart?

Your argument does not have any depth.

It is a fact that homosexual men were the main contributor of the AIDS virus and they are still the group with the highest risk, when the self restrictions on their behaviour are lowered.

[nogoodname90]

Well I am neither brain washed or stupid. Instead, I test things. Once I test things and they stand up to the level at which I held them to, I tend to trust my heart on the matter (I feel for the person who always has to question himself, it must be terribly hard). Fortunatley, I can live at peace and not wonder how I got here and where I am going. You may think this is stupid or whatever childish word you want to throw in there, but I find it rather smart. It works for me, and gives me peace and joy. I suggest you try doing the same.
I was just trying to make a joke im not saying religion is stupid. I was just making a refernce to animal farm.

[Michele]

Im assuming you mean only the ones who actually think this way and not including the many (most christians) that dont?? If not, that is quite a generalization you have going there.


yes that is what I mean. Unfortunately some of these "good" Christians that post here don't seem to fathom that as those points were written with regard to Islam and Muslims, they too were indeed quite the generalization. So to make that point I just took the same points and applied them in kind to neo conservatives (our so call most patriotic americans) and christians.

So you see you don't like it when generalizations are applied to your religion or your nationalism. How do you think Muslims and followers of Islam feel when mere generalizations are spewed forth and preceived as anything BUT generalization LET ALONE the defective thinking the points represent?

Or is it only that Christianity should be given specificity whilst "Good" Christians, blinded by their own light and so called "truth" demean another religion, whilst professing there own (generally speaking) is better or the best merely because it is a lesser evil yet.

I will tell you the truth. Any omnipresent being could swoop down upon us today and silence all religions and I would be one that wouldn't miss the dogma and fantastical divinity that passes for reality from any of them, to say nothing of the hypocritical morality plays they can all be criticized for as they all profess their own ultimate exclusivity and knowledge of ultimate truth for salvation. In this regard they all contribute to the very chaos they vilify making them all at their most fanatical USELESS to humanity at large.

Advise for quality living is one thing. Civil and Universal scientific law another, but the unknowable hogwash that some of our most vocal christians (along with the dogmatic BS all religions can be cited for) preach as they attempt to separate believers from nonbelievers becomes part of the problem as it seeks to divide rather than unify. enough from me.

I can be counted as anti-religion, with the exception that I do firmly support liberties that enable all to practice as they see fit. What I do not support is then having some religion practioners prothyelizing on a public forum particularly when their preaching intends for me to vilify whole other people, countries, religions and sexual preferences. That is just slander and bigotry and has little to do with the embodiment of the commandments or the teachings of Jesus Christ. The latter teachings which I actually like unreligiously and without having to make the sign of the cross. Ecumentity is something religion, most dogmatically, is not necessarily after. And until practitioners can grasp that I AM NOT INTERESTED IN HEARING MORTAL INTERPRETATIONS OR MIDRASH FROM ANY OF THE REILIGIONS.

ONE CAN BE a wholesome and equitable person WITHOUT any of the religions. That is my belief... but if WE WILL TOLERATE placing ONE RELIGION ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK.... All of them than can be subjected to the same scrutiny EVEN IN GENERAL TERMS.

[Izdaari]

yes that is what I mean. Unfortunately some of these "good" Christians that post here don't seem to fathom that as those points were written with regard to Islam and Muslims was indeed quite the generalization. So to make that point I just took the same points and applied them in kind to neo conservatives and christians.

So you see you don't like it when generalizations are applied to your religion. How do you think Muslims and followers of Islam feel when mere generalizations are spewed forth and preceived as anything BUT generalization IF NOT defective thinking all by itself?

Or is it only that Christianity should be given specificity whilst "Good" Christians blinded by their own light and so called "truth" demean another religions whilst professing there own (generally speakings) is better or the best merely because it is a lesser evil yet.Michele, you have a good point, but there's one critically important difference: With the exception of a few throwbacks, Christianity has moved beyond the Dark Ages and has come to terms with the modern world. Much of Islam hasn't. If the Fred Phelps sect were as large and violent as, say, Wahhabism, it would be a fair comparison.

[Michele]

Sorry, you are going to have to have that conversation with someone else.

I am not interested in placing christianity on any high minded pedestal...particularly that practiced in a country where our crime rates of homicide and rape are through the roof wherein antiquated religious morality and age old mythological sex guilt still negatively effects our ability to decrease incidents of violence toward women. We aren't in as high a position to judge even tribal practices under the umbrella of Islam....as far as I am concerned as Christian backwardness manifests itself more subtly, however so far advanced we preceive ourselves.

I find christians as repugnant and somewhat closed minded. I am sick of their cultural superiority and quaint bouts with morality... I am sick of hearing christian dogma however subtle on a public forum and I am sick of their pretense that somehow christianity will save the world. Its crap. In the real world it is crap. Particularly as christianity interfaces with affairs of state.

Particularly when one can see with their own eyes how easily christians can wax and behave barbarically once aggressions are painted up in righteousness. with teleevangelists calling for the assassination of heads of state. How many of our marines call themselves christians? How many of those within our death squads call themselves christian?

One difference is Christians in America aren't subjected to foreign interests carving up their lands. Now if we didn't have interests in these Islamic countries that we needed to exploit (RELIGIOUSLY) GEE I wonder how much farther along some of their nationalism would be? Some nationalisms that our Saxon exploiters (but not only Saxons) have ignored for geopolitical reasons.

For it seems to me that under duress and threat from the outside religious people do tend to harken backward wherein they want to regiment everything. We can see that push here in this country since 9/11.... wherein the voices of our evangelical theologians, as they attempt to influence our body politic, seem to wish to tear up our constitution. Sounds to me like backward thinking wouldn't you say?


one of the reasons they have become more fundamentally draconian is because they preceive themselves as being persecuted within their own country and from the threat upon us from Islamic radicals since 9/11.

The ME and areas of conflict where Islam is prevalent have been subjected to outside interference since before the ottoman's fell. And our (or Saxon ) intervention in the ME is hardly the kind interested in upholding the will of the people democratically. Ergo, as a consequence of constant outside threat the most theocratically extreme forms of regimentation persist which ultimately thwarts societal progress.

Hell if we were to suspend separation of church and state in our country don't kid yourself... our christian theologians would be just as suffuccating and civil liberty based upon biblical order would exclusively eroded.

For goodness sake we have christian creationists wishing to pollute our academic curricullum with that fantasy about Adam and Eve and you wish to deposit a patented precept about christian progress?

I apologize if I sound rude Izdaari, but sorry I don't hold christians in any regard let alone in higher regard than other religions... the problems with extremism in the Muslim world is not merely a religious question.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Good post Michele (referring to your first - your follow up above is a bit much), although I don't necessarily agree with all of it. Some religions are taking steps towards a more ecumenist stance - while there will always be important theological differences, there's more that unites us than divides us.

WWJB (What Would Jesus Blog). :)

[Michele]

Good post Michele (referring to your first - your follow up above is a bit much), although I don't necessarily agree with all of it. Some religions are taking steps towards a more ecumenist stance - while there will always be important theological differences, there's more that unites us than divides us.

WWJB (What Would Jesus Blog). :)


I will agree I EXAGGERATED my points. It isn't that I don't see the backward nature of Islam as it is practiced outside of this country, at the same time we have peaceful Muslims in this country wherein perhaps the more extreme aspects of the religion is tempered by its separation from state.... they can practice as they see fit amongst other peoples both secular and religious. To merely cite the religion as the ultimate cause for islamic terrorism is not only superficial it is sweeping in terms of generalization.

[Izdaari]

I apologize if I sound rude Izdaari, but sorry I don't hold christians in any regard let alone in higher regard than other religions... the problems with extremism in the Muslim world is not merely a religious question.I understand your criticisms of Christianity, though I don't agree. There are some Christians who would impose theocracy given the opportunity, but a very small number, in contrast with Islam, where often when given the chance, they have voted Islamic theocracies into power.

But as for your excuses for the Islamofascist barbarians, and I apologize in advance for sounding rude, but there isn't really a politer way to say it: Go tell it to the Leftist ideologues, because no one else will buy it.

[Michele]

I understand your criticisms of Christianity, though I don't agree. There are some Christians who would impose theocracy given the opportunity, but a very small number, in contrast with Islam, where often when given the chance, they have voted in Islamic theocracies.

But as for your excuses for the Islamofascist barbarians, and I apologize in advance for sounding rude, but there isn't really a politer way to say it: Go tell it to the Leftist ideologues, because no one else will buy it.


Please.... Islamofascists? Hell we can't get anymore fascist than the Oil corporatists that have embedded themselves within our politics, state department and intelligence community that have aided Saudi Arabia in their fascistic monarchy and the development of our oil interests, even as our fascists have promised Saudi Arabian balance of power in the region would not be threatened, wherein both work hand in hand to exploit cheap laborers. In saudi arabia they come from Pakistan and egypt (to name two places) and now in Iraq they are immigrated in from South Asia.

Obviously you can't fathom the adverse effect geopolitical exploitation has had on the region and perhaps you aren't interested in contemplating the fascistic nature of the outside intervention. Or perhaps even our fascists are a lesser evil particularly if we don't examine the evolution of radical extremism in the ME within an objective philological and historical context and refuse to factor in ALL CAUSES not just ISLAM.

Solely from the perspective of geopolitics we have done everything in our power to subvert the voice of democratic islam as our democracy (though less and less) is suppose to concern itself with the will of our people .... that is the last will our Oil and natural gas comglomerates want to conform to in the ME (proven as far back as the overthrow of Mossadeq) so we enable the royal monarchy and we call our facsistically motivated aggressions and invasions, liberations whilst "good" christians content themselves into believe they corner some market on goodness.

You don't have to apologize to me about your rudeness (which I would call directness rather than rudeness). save your apologies for christianity and the red white and blue.

[Michele]

But as for your excuses for the Islamofascist barbarians

I don't believe I was just factoring in Islamofascist barbarians BTW, my comments were aimed at the generalizations about Islam that still passes for discourse on this forum. Whilst generalization of christianity aren't as tolerated. Why? becauses Christians themselves are here to counter generalization. On the other hand there are few if any Muslims here to counter generalization with regard to Islam let alone help the forum make some of the needed distinctions in terms of the varying sects. So the good christians here can pretend they are having astute discussion without the interference of the opinions or knowledge from anyone who practices the very religion being criticized in general terms.

So Now I see you hear Islamo fascists when Islam is raised for dicussion. that you have made the extrapolation all on your own is quite telling. Seems the generalizations suit you than while you attempt to temper similar generalizations of your own religion. How ecumenical of you. I on the other hand wasn't only considering the most extreme manifestation of Political Islam.

[ScummyD]

As I mentioned in my opening post in this thread it is my position that Islam "produces" nothing just as guns do not kill people. After I thought about this thread after posting that remark it struck me as just how absurd the title of this thread. Here is why.

Islam produces defective thinking

How do you account for the history of Islamic science and scholarship, then, hmmm???

While Europe was in the so-called Dark Ages Islam was on the rise and the formation of Islamic states followed.

In these Islamic bastions learning was encourgaed and libraries built. Baghdad was the intellectual focal point. Works of Greek learning were translated and science advanced to a remarkable degree.

Astronomy flourished. Chemical research flourished. Metallurgy. Geology.

In short the letters and science flourished in the Islamic world.

Anyway, the list of Islamic accomplishments is looong. It is odd that the author of this thread engaged in the type of reading he describes in his opening post, yet has no knowledge of the glory days of Islam and its REAL contributions to humanity and some how came to the conclusion that "Islam produces defective thinking."

[Izdaari]

Good point, Scummy. Islam USED to produce some very good thinking. What went wrong?

[ScummyD]

I would only add that would include nationalistic beliefs as they produce a similar form of extremism that in passing itself off as patriotism can be equally as defective.
This is not true.

Just as Islam can be used to advance extremism so can nationalism, but neither require extremism. One can be a moderate Muslim and a moderate nationalist. These do not require blood letting. It is only a misunderstadning of either that leads a person to such false conslusions.

To assert that nationalism some how produces extremism is no different from asserting that Islam produces extremism or that guns kill people. This is all rubbish!

One example would be the common everyday type of nationalism commonly known as "civic nationalism."

I would not think that you would consider civic nationalism and the mere voting as a US polling station in November as extremism. Or would you?

[neo of the mind]

Good point, Scummy. Islam USED to produce some very good thinking. What went wrong?

I think what Izdaari is pointing out is that, ok, Islam was a factor in doing some great things that advanced civilization, but really, since the rise of Europe, what have they done?

[burntgorilla]

Africa was a factor in doing some great things that advanced civilization, but really, since the rise of Europe, what have they done?

[towski]

Africa was a factor in doing some great things that advanced civilization, but really, since the rise of Europe, what have they done?

Slackers.

[steveksux]

So, ScummyD, another insightful point. :thinking:

So is there a ransom we can pay to get the old Scummy back? Are you holding the real scummy hostage somewhere? ;)

Didn't the Arabs invent the concept of 0? That was a major advancement to the mathematics of the time if I recall correctly.

Randy

[Izdaari]

I think what Izdaari is pointing out is that, ok, Islam was a factor in doing some great things that advanced civilization, but really, since the rise of Europe, what have they done?Yeah, that's the ticket. :D

And Scorched Ape, I wonder what went wrong with Africa too. They also had great civilizations once.

Didn't the Arabs invent the concept of 0? That was a major advancement to the mathematics of the time if I recall correctly.They didn't invent it -- it had been known to the Babylonians, Mayans and in India -- but the Arab mathematician al-Khwarizmi [780-850] was the first to publish it in the West in his groundbreaking book Al-Jabr wa-al-Muqabilah that also introduced Arabic numerals and algebra. It was apparently from India that he got it.

http://www.ms.uky.edu/~carl/ma330/project2/al-khwa21.html

That introduced all kinds of new avenues in math and science, but for some reason Europeans took advantage of them to make important technological advances, but Islamic civilization did not. Why?

[steveksux]

They didn't invent it -- it had been known to the Babylonians, Mayans and in India -- but the Arab mathematician al-Khwarizmi [780-850] was the first to publish it in the West in his groundbreaking book Al-Jabr wa-al-Muqabilah that also introduced Arabic numerals and algebra. It was apparently from India that he got it.
Stealing is often more efficient than inventing! :D
That introduced all kinds of new avenues in math and science, but for some reason Europeans took advantage of them to make important technological advances, but Islamic civilization did not. Why?Good point, other technological societies were snuffed out, or supplanted. Egypt fell, Romans and Greeks.

Are we looking at this backwards? Maybe there wasn't something wrong or missing with other cultures so much as Europeans were simply lucky to get the ball rolling when we did. Once you get on the technology bandwagon, it tends to snowball, gather momentum quickly if people share knowlege.

But if I had to bet, it was the whole awakening of science in the west replacing mysticism. The whole outlook that the world is knowable, discoverable, that we're not at the whim of gods, that our fate is in our hands. not some all powerful God.

Randy

[Meek Heir]

but for some reason Europeans took advantage of them to make important technological advances, but Islamic civilization did not. Why?

Because "Islamic civilization" did make important technological advances, and then Europe built on those when it entered it's heyday.

Your assertion is comparable to the idea that Europe couldn't think of the Internet or Apollo Program because America was doing all these great things while Europe just sat there. Humans build off the advancements proposed by other humans, that's what langauge is for. That doesn't mean the last one in the line is the smartest.

[Izdaari]

Stealing is often more efficient than inventing! :DYes, and I applaud him for outstandingly useful thefts. Those were so good as to be like Prometheus stealing fire from the gods! :clap:

Good point, other technological societies were snuffed out, or supplanted. Egypt fell, Romans and Greeks.

Are we looking at this backwards? Maybe there wasn't something wrong or missing with other cultures so much as Europeans were simply lucky to get the ball rolling when we did. Once you get on the technology bandwagon, it tends to snowball, gather momentum quickly if people share knowlege.It wasn't luck. As Ayn Rand was so fond of saying, "Ideas have consequences." The Europeans had philosophical underpinnings that encouraged the sharing of knowledge, so they were able to get on that technology bandwagon. Islamic culture did not.

...Aristotle, along with his Muslim commentators Avicenna and Averroes, were studied in European universities in the twelfth century and after, while in the Islamic world their work was largely ignored and certainly not taught in schools, which then, as now, mostly concentrated on memorization and study of the Quran. -- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), p. 94

But if I had to bet, it was the whole awakening of science in the west replacing mysticism. The whole outlook that the world is knowable, discoverable, that we're not at the whim of gods, that our fate is in our hands. not some all powerful God.Yeah, that's it. Kinda. In the West, God was seen as having made a knowable, predictable universe, and that provides a basis for science. The Muslim conception was different. Allah could do anything he wanted, even not be good if he felt like it. Their universe was, at root, a chaotic one.

[Izdaari]

Because "Islamic civilization" did make important technological advances, and then Europe built on those when it entered it's heyday.

Your assertion is comparable to the idea that Europe couldn't think of the Internet or Apollo Program because America was doing all these great things while Europe just sat there. Humans build off the advancements proposed by other humans, that's what langauge is for. That doesn't mean the last one in the line is the smartest.Sure, they made advances, for a while. And then they stopped making them while the Europeans continued to move ahead. Why?

But I've already answered that in my previous post (#108).

[Meek Heir]

Sure, they made advances, for a while. And then they stopped making them while the Europeans continued to move ahead. Why?

And the Chinese had a huge gap in their making advances period. Half of the inventions of Europe where stolen from the Chinese for a while. What advances did the Europeans make in the period of Islamic hey day? Effectively, none. Because although there is room to travel down different paths, there can be only one society that is more technically advanced then the others. Europe didn't "continue to move ahead" they started to move ahead, before that they were clinging to the coattails of others. Just as from 1600 to 1800 the America's didn't invent much besides a (mostly copied anyway) political philosphy. There can be only one top dog at a time and to say that because Islamic culture didn't stay top dog that they produce defective thinking is inviting the return from whomever (my tenative Yen is on Asia) ends up supersedeing America and Europe.

[Meek Heir]

In the West, God was seen as having made a knowable, predictable universe, and that provides a basis for science. The Muslim conception was different. Allah could do anything he wanted, even not be good if he felt like it. Their universe was, at root, a chaotic one.

So you are going to ignore the many contributors to technology in the west who were without belief in God?

Why of a list of important inventors and philosphers (I just mean anyone who deals with thoughts rather then things), especially in the west, disproportionally to population athiest, agnostic, skeptic, or whatever, but without belief in God?

[Izdaari]

So you are going to ignore the many contributors to technology in the west who were without belief in God?

Why of a list of important inventors and philosphers (I just mean anyone who deals with thoughts rather then things), especially in the west, disproportionally to population athiest, agnostic, skeptic, or whatever, but without belief in God?Not at all. But today's atheists, agnostics, skeptics or whatever, share the same belief in a predictable universe that medieval Catholics had, and you can build science on that just fine. :)

It's rather harder to do when your religion tells you God doesn't have to be good if he doesn't feel like it (i.e., the universe is chaotic) and the Quran, and writings based on it, are the only things worth studying. :(

[Izdaari]

And the Chinese had a huge gap in their making advances period. Half of the inventions of Europe where stolen from the Chinese for a while. What advances did the Europeans make in the period of Islamic hey day? Effectively, none. Because although there is room to travel down different paths, there can be only one society that is more technically advanced then the others. Europe didn't "continue to move ahead" they started to move ahead, before that they were clinging to the coattails of others. Just as from 1600 to 1800 the America's didn't invent much besides a (mostly copied anyway) political philosphy. There can be only one top dog at a time and to say that because Islamic culture didn't stay top dog that they produce defective thinking is inviting the return from whomever (my tenative Yen is on Asia) ends up supersedeing America and Europe.That's all fine, but why has the new Dark Age of Islam lasted for at least 800 years now? It's about time they got on the ball, don't you think?

[FlyingGuineapig]

Why of a list of important inventors and philosphers (I just mean anyone who deals with thoughts rather then things), especially in the west, disproportionally to population athiest, agnostic, skeptic, or whatever, but without belief in God?
Wouldn't inventors also deal with things as well as thoughts? :) However, at least in the case of inventors/engineers, I haven't come across many athiests. Skeptics - of course - but invention requires a careful balance of belief and skepticism. Mostly Hindus, Moslems, Christians, Jews, and even an occasional Buddhist, in my experience. Oh, and a Zorastian. Not many of those.

[Meek Heir]

Not at all. But today's atheists, agnostics, skeptics or whatever, share the same belief in a predictable universe that medieval Catholics had, and you can build science on that just fine. :)

It's rather harder to do when your religion tells you God doesn't have to be good if he doesn't feel like it (i.e., the universe is chaotic) and the Quran, and writings based on it, are the only things worth studying. :(

To be perfectly honest, I don't know much about the Quran or the Muslim faith, but I don't really think it points any more towards a chaotic universe then the Old Testament.

[Meek Heir]

That's all fine, but why has the new Dark Age of Islam lasted for at least 800 years now? It's about time they got on the ball, don't you think?

800 years doesn't seem especially long to me, but to put it quite simply, it's always time for everyone to get out of their dark ages. They just don't always oblige me.

[julierep]

yes that is what I mean. Unfortunately some of these "good" Christians that post here don't seem to fathom that as those points were written with regard to Islam and Muslims, they too were indeed quite the generalization. So to make that point I just took the same points and applied them in kind to neo conservatives (our so call most patriotic americans) and christians.

So you see you don't like it when generalizations are applied to your religion or your nationalism. How do you think Muslims and followers of Islam feel when mere generalizations are spewed forth and preceived as anything BUT generalization LET ALONE the defective thinking the points represent?

Or is it only that Christianity should be given specificity whilst "Good" Christians, blinded by their own light and so called "truth" demean another religion, whilst professing there own (generally speaking) is better or the best merely because it is a lesser evil yet.

I will tell you the truth. Any omnipresent being could swoop down upon us today and silence all religions and I would be one that wouldn't miss the dogma and fantastical divinity that passes for reality from any of them, to say nothing of the hypocritical morality plays they can all be criticized for as they all profess their own ultimate exclusivity and knowledge of ultimate truth for salvation. In this regard they all contribute to the very chaos they vilify making them all at their most fanatical USELESS to humanity at large.

Advise for quality living is one thing. Civil and Universal scientific law another, but the unknowable hogwash that some of our most vocal christians (along with the dogmatic BS all religions can be cited for) preach as they attempt to separate believers from nonbelievers becomes part of the problem as it seeks to divide rather than unify. enough from me.

I can be counted as anti-religion, with the exception that I do firmly support liberties that enable all to practice as they see fit. What I do not support is then having some religion practioners prothyelizing on a public forum particularly when their preaching intends for me to vilify whole other people, countries, religions and sexual preferences. That is just slander and bigotry and has little to do with the embodiment of the commandments or the teachings of Jesus Christ. The latter teachings which I actually like unreligiously and without having to make the sign of the cross. Ecumentity is something religion, most dogmatically, is not necessarily after. And until practitioners can grasp that I AM NOT INTERESTED IN HEARING MORTAL INTERPRETATIONS OR MIDRASH FROM ANY OF THE REILIGIONS.

ONE CAN BE a wholesome and equitable person WITHOUT any of the religions. That is my belief... but if WE WILL TOLERATE placing ONE RELIGION ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK.... All of them than can be subjected to the same scrutiny EVEN IN GENERAL TERMS.

Well, Im guessing since you support freedom of speech, you should at least allow the religious to do express that right (even the fundies), whether you like what they say or not. If someone wants to get on this forum and spew their religion all over the board you can do one of two things: Either you can chose to ignore it or you can get on the same level you feel they are on and spew what you think of their religion. I dont think ANY Christian believes they are free from sin. If they do, then they are highly misinformed. When one holds a belief (any belief), its pretty much very near and dear to them. This is what they stand up for. This is what they fight for. If you believe wholeheartedly in something, I would expect you to do the same. If you dont think that people should be aloud to do so, then the same should apply to your thoughts of what you hold so near and dear to your heart.

[Meek Heir]

Wouldn't inventors also deal with things as well as thoughts? :) However, at least in the case of inventors/engineers, I haven't come across many athiests. Skeptics - of course - but invention requires a careful balance of belief and skepticism. Mostly Hindus, Moslems, Christians, Jews, and even an occasional Buddhist, in my experience. Oh, and a Zorastian. Not many of those.

Yes inventors would deal with thoughts as well, I was mostly just trying to define philosphers to include the types of people I find most important besides inventors (which is a fairly well defined concept). I didn't want anyone to think I was ignoring their pet profession, say economist, or political theorist, or Bacon? who invented the scientific method.

And actually after posting I realized that it was mostly the latter category where the non-believers are higher per-capita. Not so much the inventors. But I'm lazy so I didn't change it.

[Meek Heir]

If you dont think that people should be aloud to do so, then the same should apply to your thoughts of what you hold so near and dear to your heart.

Well I hold hypocrisy near and dear to my heart, so what should I do now? :D

[julierep]

Well I hold hypocrisy near and dear to my heart, so what should I do now? :D

You should express that :D . However, if you do, please be aware that someone will come behind you and give their thoughts on the matter, whether it agrees with how you feel or not. If someone is going to dish, they must be able to eat as well. ;)

[nogoodname90]

Not at all. But today's atheists, agnostics, skeptics or whatever, share the same belief in a predictable universe that medieval Catholics had, and you can build science on that just fine. :)

It's rather harder to do when your religion tells you God doesn't have to be good if he doesn't feel like it (i.e., the universe is chaotic) and the Quran, and writings based on it, are the only things worth studying. :(
Wronge the Quran promotes sicence

[Izdaari]

Wronge the Quran promotes sicenceDoes it now? I wish it were so, but you'll have to show me.

As I understand it, doesn't the Quran portray Allah as absolutely sovereign and bound by nothing? Doesn't that preclude a key assumption that fostered the development of science in Europe: that God is good, and His goodness is consistent? And therefore He created the universe according to rational laws that can be discovered, making scientific investigation worthwhile?

"No one is good but God alone." -- Jesus (Mark 10:18)

"The Jews say: 'Allah's hand is chained.' May their own hands be chained! May they be cursed for what they say! By no means. His hands are both outstretched: He bestows as He will." -- Qur'an 5:64

[Meek Heir]

Does it now? I wish it were so, but you'll have to show me.

As I understand it, doesn't the Quran portray Allah as absolutely sovereign and bound by nothing? Doesn't that preclude a key assumption that fostered the development of science in Europe: that God is good, and His goodness is consistent? And therefore He created the universe according to rational laws that can be discovered, making scientific investigation worthwhile?

"No one is good but God alone." -- Jesus (Mark 10:18)

"The Jews say: 'Allah's hand is chained.' May their own hands be chained! May they be cursed for what they say! By no means. His hands are both outstretched: He bestows as He will." -- Qur'an 5:64

Are you really asserting that Allah is not thought of as good by Muslims? Or that God never did anything that did not demonstrate his power taking precedence over his good?

And this:

that God is good, and His goodness is consistent? And therefore He created the universe according to rational laws that can be discovered

is a logical flaw. Being "good" in no way implies that the universe is understandable, and the Old Testament consists entirely of examples of the universe not working according to rational laws.

[Izdaari]

This is how St. Thomas Aquinas put it:

"Since the principles of certain sciences -- of logic, geometry and arithmetic, for instance -- are derived exclusively from the formal principals of things, upon which their essence depends, it follows that God cannot make the contraries of these principles; He cannot make the genus not to be predicable of the species, nor lines drawn from a circle's center to its circumference not to be equal, nor the three angles of a rectilinear triangle not to be equal to two right angles."

But in Islam, Allah is absolutely free, and to al-Ghazali, an important Muslim philosopher, the very idea that there were laws of nature was blasphemy, a denial of Allah's freedom. I don't know if any Muslims still believe that, but in the 12th century, al-Ghazali was taken very seriously, which would explain why Islamic science had trouble gaining any traction.

[steveksux]

I think it was partially a matter of priorities as well. If the priority is studying the Quran rather than trying to discover how the world works (it works the way Allah wants it to....) you're not going to bother doing science, cause there aren't any rules "written in stone" to discover.

Randy

[burntgorilla]

This is how St. Thomas Aquinas put it:

"Since the principles of certain sciences -- of logic, geometry and arithmetic, for instance -- are derived exclusively from the formal principals of things, upon which their essence depends, it follows that God cannot make the contraries of these principles; He cannot make the genus not to be predicable of the species, nor lines drawn from a circle's center to its circumference not to be equal, nor the three angles of a rectilinear triangle not to be equal to two right angles."

But in Islam, Allah is absolutely free, and to al-Ghazali, an important Muslim philosopher, the very idea that there were laws of nature was blasphemy, a denial of Allah's freedom. I don't know if any Muslims still believe that, but in the 12th century, al-Ghazali was taken very seriously, which would explain why Islamic science had trouble gaining any traction.

Islamic countries were quite the place to be if you were interested in science in the middle ages. Or dark ages, or whatever they're called these days.

[Michele]

This is not true.

Just as Islam can be used to advance extremism so can nationalism, but neither require extremism. One can be a moderate Muslim and a moderate nationalist. These do not require blood letting. It is only a misunderstadning of either that leads a person to such false conslusions.

To assert that nationalism some how produces extremism is no different from asserting that Islam produces extremism or that guns kill people. This is all rubbish!

One example would be the common everyday type of nationalism commonly known as "civic nationalism."

I would not think that you would consider civic nationalism and the mere voting as a US polling station in November as extremism. Or would you?



I agree.... and please note in my post I stated Nationalism in its most extreme form CAN produce defective thinking. Of course I don't consider mere voting at a US polling station in November as extremism. As such I wasn't talking about civil duties WE THE PEOPLE are responsible for. I was talking about the extreme nationalism that requires we support our nation RIGHT OR WRONG to the degree that it encourages xenophobia and hawkish solutions without ever considering root causes particularly those where OUR OWN negative behaviors are minimized whilst the negative behaviors of those our actions effect are maximized....

I am talking about the extreme nationalism pits us against them whereby expressions of hollow superiority that bred hatred are defined as patriotic and anything that attempts to breed understanding is defined as treasonous. The extreme patriotism that defines all criticism of our nation as anti-american or pro terrorist. the extreme patriotism that enables one to only see the so called Islamo fasicism when they read the word Islam without factoring the nature of our own corporately fascistic dealings which can only reinforce the very fascistic tendency we now deem counter productive. the very patriots than read this and still ask well Islam USED to be such, so what went wrong.... still oblvious to that part of the reality that REQUIRES we look out OUR POLICIES AND WHAT HAS GUIDED THEM....particularly when they too are part of the problem and part of what facilitates a terrorist cycle particularly as we place some on our payrolls including narco terrorists. In terms of just that reality I find the focus on the so called backward nature of Islam innane and irritating particularly when christianity can not really exclude itself in terms of beheadings and barbarism as if that is something only others are guilty of.

I am talking about the anglocentric EXTREME NATIONALISM that has us only understanding our national pride and its responsibility to our nation which uphold our interests, but defines all nationalism as expressed within what we define as rogue nations as being radical and extreme . For instance like the nationalism of Nasser in Egypt whose main thrust was to end British colonial rule.... or the nationalism of a Mossadeq whose interests included nationalizing Iranian oil... Hey if texas oil had been developed by outside interests wherein the profits of the oil itself flowed into the coffers of outsiders wouldn't texas oil men STRIVE TO NATIONALIZE THEIR OIL? why is it so hard for some of the most patriotic to grasp this protectionism when that very aim is saught in a country like Iran? Oh because we don't approve of their theocracy?

Your post just above this one I have responded --- Good Post.

[brainpan]

Islamic countries were quite the place to be if you were interested in science in the middle ages. Or dark ages, or whatever they're called these days.They managed to NOT destroy the classical knowledge that a very few of them took an interest in for a relatively short period of time.

[chukster8614]

This is about the most mean-spirited, racist premise to a discussion thread I've ever read since I've begun visiting WS.

[Meek Heir]

This is how St. Thomas Aquinas put it:

"Since the principles of certain sciences -- of logic, geometry and arithmetic, for instance -- are derived exclusively from the formal principals of things, upon which their essence depends, it follows that God cannot make the contraries of these principles; He cannot make the genus not to be predicable of the species, nor lines drawn from a circle's center to its circumference not to be equal, nor the three angles of a rectilinear triangle not to be equal to two right angles."

But in Islam, Allah is absolutely free, and to al-Ghazali, an important Muslim philosopher, the very idea that there were laws of nature was blasphemy, a denial of Allah's freedom. I don't know if any Muslims still believe that, but in the 12th century, al-Ghazali was taken very seriously, which would explain why Islamic science had trouble gaining any traction.

But that to me is indicative of two different people coming up with two different ideas. I don't see any particular scriptural or doctrinal basis for Aquinas's ideas. Since God changed the rules of nature quite often, and he changed the number pi I don't see how it can be asserted that Christianity predicts a discoverable universe. It seems to be a constuction of the people with no basis in their religion at all, that they then made compatible with their religion.

[burntgorilla]

They managed to NOT destroy the classical knowledge that a very few of them took an interest in for a relatively short period of time.

Indeed. So it was quite the place to be.

This is about the most mean-spirited, racist premise to a discussion thread I've ever read since I've begun visiting WS.

Anything goes against Islam. If someone had written the same post, but claiming black people have defective intelligence, there'd be an uproar. Hell, there'd be an uproar if I said Buddhism produced defective thinking.

[Izdaari]

This is about the most mean-spirited, racist premise to a discussion thread I've ever read since I've begun visiting WS.PC BS. Either Islam does or does not produce defective thinking. It's a legitimately debatable proposition. The same would be true of the same question asked vs. any other religion or any school of secular philosophy. Trying to preclude debate by labeling the very concept racist is profoundly anti-intellectual.

[Izdaari]

I think it was partially a matter of priorities as well. If the priority is studying the Quran rather than trying to discover how the world works (it works the way Allah wants it to....) you're not going to bother doing science, cause there aren't any rules "written in stone" to discover.I agree. That's a good insight, Randy. :)

[ScummyD]

I think it was partially a matter of priorities as well. If the priority is studying the Quran rather than trying to discover how the world works (it works the way Allah wants it to....) you're not going to bother doing science, cause there aren't any rules "written in stone" to discover.

Randy
This is it in a nut shell, here.

The problem is that the Koran came to dictate all matters of life and anything, any knowledge or learning, that fell outside the Koran was proscribed, as was the case in the Ottoman Empire.

Reason became a handmaiden to religion and reason subordinate to dogma.

This is not a cultural atmopshere that facilitates or is conducive to advancements in science and tech.

And . . . Good points, Michele. That makes more sense to me.

[towski]

Your post just above this one I have responded --- Good Post.

Good points, Michele. That makes more sense to me.

This week's sign of the apocolypse...

[AgentM]

This week's sign of the apocolypse...

Heh, I was thinking that. Michele and ScummyD agreeing with each other? Somethings terribly terribly wrong! :)

[ScummyD]

And I almost left out that lil comment. ;)

[steveksux]

And I almost left out that lil comment. ;)Then you concede the Apocalypse is officially your fault? Well, you and Michelle.

Randy

[ScummyD]

This is about the most mean-spirited, racist premise to a discussion thread I've ever read since I've begun visiting WS.
In response to that. . .

I commend the modeleones for not snipping this thread. I have read several comments of this nature regarding certain topics and I believe it is more free speech that is the answer and not censorship. Not that censorship is what chukster is necessarily calling for, but others have.

I believe it is better for people to be confronted by the folly of their beliefs in the arena of ideas and their arguments smashed, rather than snuff out debate and free speech under the guise of tolerance and fairness and a zealous quest to prohibit "offensive generalizations."

And I think this thread proves the utility of such freedom for where has the author of this thread run off to??? Apparently after receiving multiple rhetorical lashings and the premise of his thread absolutely shredded he has tucked tail and run for the high grass. And free speech was not sacrificed in the process. A good thing.

[chukster8614]

I believe it is better for people to be confronted by the folly of their beliefs in the arena of ideas and their arguments smashed, rather than snuff out debate and free speech under the guise of tolerance and fairness and a zealous quest to prohibit "offensive generalizations."

I agree completely with this assertion. If it weren't for the moderators letting this one go, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to voice my displeasure for, what I regard to be, a prejudice out there that seems to be increasingly and disturbingly prevalent and pernicious.

Censorship just sweeps it under the rug until the place stinks to high heaven.

Anyway, good one Scummy.

[ScummyD]

If it weren't for the moderators letting this one go, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to voice my displeasure for, what I regard to be, a prejudice out there that seems to be increasingly and disturbingly prevalent and pernicious.

Censorship just sweeps it under the rug until the place stinks to high heaven.

Yep. Exactly. Especially the last bit.

[Dutch]

So, basically the same with any religion, if you take it too far? You only have to look at the threads in this folder to see defective thinking based on religion.

You're forgetting national socialism and communism. It doesn't have to be a religion to create this kind of thinking.

[ScummyD]

What the hell. I was just combing through this old thread, and then suddenly you post a submission.

Weird.

[rjamortega]

I’ve read four neutral-to-pro-Islam books in the past 45 days, read many chapters of a dozen+ other books on Islam, perused many pro-Islam sites, and have come to the conclusion that somehow Islam itself produces defective thinking.

I’m glad I found this article by Dr. Babu Suseelan, a Professor of Clinical Psychology in Pennsylvaniam because it articulates scientifically my findings and augments my conclusions.

Per Dr. Suseelan, typical Islamic thinking errors include:

* Polarized or all-or-nothing-thinking (e.g.: believers and non-believers, daru-ul-Islam, dar-ul-harb)
* Catastrophic Thinking (all infidels will go to hell)
* Discounting the positive, accentuate the negative (all kafirs are trying to get Muslims)
* Emotional reasoning (emotional justification for bombing, beheading, terrorism)
* Labeling (putting a global label on non-believers as kafirs)
* Minimization (blame the victim, denial, alibi)
* Mind Reading (Muslims know what non-Muslims are thinking)
* Mental Filter (Failure to see things holistically)
* Overgeneralization (making sweeping negative conclusions: Jews are pigs, Christians are rats)
* Personalization (Muslims believe Kafirs are behaving negatively because of Islam)
* Tunnel Vision (seeing things only in the Islamic way)

Pathway