[Skybird]

Edit: sorry for the many typos due to my extreme speed-typing. but I'm tired, and lazy anyway (as always), and it is late over here, so I do not take a second read now. and if I would not type typos anymore, some people maybe even would wonder what is wrong with me.

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

You might as well describe human nature, Sky.

No, I am not talking on human nature in this disucssion, and I refuse to do s, for in the context of this discussion'S topic it is not needed, therefore, I completely ignore it. I focus on: ideologies, not individuals, not human natures, ideologies are not all the same, some are more aggressively pushing than others, some ore more for the benefit of the many, some are more for the profit of the few, and some propagate more positive things, and others more negative things.

[/quote]
People are notoriously vulnerable to ideologies, both religious and secular.[/quote]

Again, there are differences. For example I have quoted in the past an essay by Bonhoeffer, who examined the nature of human stupidity in nthat text and mentioned that it is more a sociological (group) than psychological (individual) phenomenen and issue. He expresses the observation nthat in groups people tend to be more vulnerable to fall for the tendency the crowd is heading at, while isolated individuals seem to be more likely to withstand stupid mass phenomenons. I would say, no, I am convinced that it is the same with ideologies (as well as popular media culture).

They're also notoriously vulnerable to stereotyping and prejudice. It's not the fault of any particular group (though some are more predisposed than others), it's simple human nature. Evidence for this claim comes from the behavior of other apes in the natural world; they follow leaders, they fight, they form groups, and they make war. Chimps are infamous for such behavior. The human mind evolved from such as these, and we display these tendencies today.....

Ouh, let's leave this dangerous simplification of what a scientific evidence is out of here. The scientific working standard is a bit more strictly, and i also must point out that eye-witness reports of random chance witnesses or professional observers never have the status of a scientific theory, necessarily.

.....which is exactly what you are doing here. Islam is, in many cases, a bad religion. It is a bad ideology, but that doesn't mean it needs to be singled out for extermination.

No? Why is that, when it is a bigger threat to mnakind than any other ideology we know of, and when it claims global domination and extinction or subjugation of everything else as it's oltimate goal? BTW, extenrination is a word that I have NEVER used in any of these debates. I want to bring its spreading to a halt in hour home societies, and push it back. where it stays, it needs to be replaced, for I rule out the possibility that this ideology can be "modernised", "reformed", "tamed" or whatever.

More importantly, it doesn't mean that the people who practice it need to be singled out or exterminated.

When they support Islam as islam defines itself by its own scripture and self-understanding, than I do single them out for sure, and hold them respnsible for their belief, becasue thanks to the presence of every single individual, Islam is one head stronger in our home societies, and has one voice more to claim its goals. The same is true for fake-Muslims or apostates who just are to afraid to realsie that theay ar4e apostates, both groups may not be in active support of real islam, but nevertheless they help its cause by talking it nice and not standing up against it and giving it a big silent anonymous background that serves as a retreat area for the radical islamic claims. In German we call such people "Mitläufer", I am not sure I know the exact translation for that, I think my earli8er attempts were wrong, so I leave it to the german word. Mitlöufer are respnsible as well, becasue their passivity and silent support creates the space and opporutnity where the active idea can unfold. for example, only a minority of Germans were active Nazis, but very many were Mitläufer. Without these mitläufer, the Nazis would not have been able to rise.

Actually, Islam is very much like other religions used to be. Hinduism Judaism, and Catholocism exhibited very similar tendencies when they were primitive religions. The problem with Islam is that it has not been forced to evolve in its home regions. Rather than being included in the global community it has been persecuted and excluded. We can debate that point forever, but what matters is the Islam sees it that way.

Wrong. Islam pretty much saw itself as the climax oh human civilisation - until Napoleon löanded in Egyp and all that scientific and civilisational and military superirioty of the Europeans was revealed to the Muhammeddan world. Since then it tends to claim special rights for itself and wants to claim that the Wetsern acchievements in science and technoloy and so forth owe it to the muslim world to be given them for free, although the Muslim world did little, and often: nothing to gain and deserve them them, and it thinks the West owes it to them for the offence of being so superior that it has to submit to islam - so that Islam'S claim to be the peak of civilisational evolution would be correct again. but societies must be ready for technolgical and scientific modernisations, they must be ripe, or they get crushed or paralysed by the new. In case of islam, you have a medieval, primtive mind-world, depending on superstititon and submissive, fatalistic obedience, colliding head-on with the modern West and all the items and qualities that brings. even more, they got hit by a seocnd desaster, they found out that they had oil. It served as a wonderful excuse why they would not have to chnage and adapt to the nodern time at all. why should they, if they could become rich and simply buy all the wonderful foreign items, and the operators could be leased? for the muslim world, oil is as much a curse as it is for us. for us it is, because they have it but not us, for them it is, becasue it has prevented the realisation that the reason for their medieval, stagnating, porimtive society is not a conspiracy by the West, but islams own anti-intellectual nature, its inherent stagnation that seeks not creative modenrisation and developement, but a fundamentlaist, totalitarian fixiation on a far away past that dictates rules and habits that are no longer adequate for the creative flexibility of the modern world. the clash of civilisation - in reality is more a clash of times, more than anything else. Reason for it is the islamic ideology and the way it has educated the thinking patterns and cultural developement and social role-modelling islam is handicapped by so much - and terrorises peopole with nevertheless, especially women, and infidels. but of course it psychologically castrates muslim males as well. relations between family fathers and sons are a very critical conflict in the West, giving birth to more and more social explosives. Social workers ofteh describe family structures as "crippled", seriously ill, and "pathologic". In Germany we have two turkish female Islam critics, who time and again bring it to the formula that more than anything else the uslim world needa a global sexual revolution. Both women are right, an they get plenty of fire for that. And the Germans themselves? Have nothing better to do for attacking them as well, becaseu especially Frau Kelec is a very detemrined defender of Wetsern values and the western underatabding of freedom. Germans ask instead why this freedom could be claimed to be so precious, and that it remindsa of the Nazis claimed superiority to defend this freedom. when hearing such sick comments, I realise in what a hopeless mental asylum i am already living.

Islam is "tameable", as are all ideologies and religions. All it takes is a little mutually beneficial interaction and acceptance.

That is naivety resulting from total lack of understanding islam. You also seem to make the big, big mistake to think that what has worked in America necessarily works in all other cultures as well. You should know that better - you have seen your share of the mess created by this flawed assumption.

Very soon, you would see an Islam, that is, a religion, that is so interdependent upon outsiders that it can't be fundamental or militaristic. It simply doesn't have the option anymore. Religions are made of people and they will behave like people.

I'm sorry to say, but you will leanr better by painful experience. the question is not if, but when. Until then I only can recommend you get half a dozen of books on islamic scritpure (academic anaylsis, else you are lost), and history. for the world it will probably not make a difference. But maybe for yourself.

Let me put it this way: I'm a follower of Christ. I believe in peace, tolerance, and forgiveness. I honsetly think that a man who existed 2000 years ago was the Son of the One True God and that he performed miracles and died for our sins. I believe that no man is closer to God than any other. My religion has survived and prospered because it is one of acceptance. But where it was persecuted, it fought back. If you came here today and told me that I couldn't practice my religion, I'd fight you, too. So is it any wonder that a primitive religion fights?

Chriszinaity and Islam do not comlpare. I have compained so oftenm now why that is so, and i am in very good acadmeic comnpany with that opinion, that I will not do it once again, since it would be a waste of time anyway. Just realsie one thing, at least. you talked of self-defence of Christinaity (while it could be argued that in the past oit was very much in the offence, and today doesnot dare to defend itself, but that just as a side remark). Islam's understanding does not know a peace of mutual coexistence as you outlined it. the homo islamicus is the goal of evolution, it is ther will of allah that all and everything mist follow his law, that ois the direction at which natural evolution is developing anyway, and not acepting that, standing against iodslam, refusing it is thus an ogfence against Allah, and an attack omn nature and man himself. Therefore you have this strict divbison between the house of war and the house of Islam. Peace in islam means the absence of any potential challenger who could disturb the "peace" of Muslim monoculture and uniformity (uniformity=strength by being united), thus there cannot be peace as löong as the hopuse of war is not brought down. islam is not in self-defence, James. Like the russians after WWII, it only knows "forward-defense", attack, not preempti9vely, but to neutrlaise the offence that is given by the other, the non-muslim qulaity, simply existing. the concept of tolerance and coesitence that you just fantasised about, thus does not work with Islam. Islam only was brought to temporrary halts, where it wasx confronted by resistence that was stronger than it's own forces. but Islam prohibits to cement such a situation in peace treaties, but the Quran demand that only temporary seizefires get agree to, which should not last for longe rthan i think two years (Quran), so that the muslim army can regain strength , but on the other hand is not exposed to the risk of getting infested and blotted by the infidel's thoughts and habits. islam is the most successful military conquest operation of all uman history, it aism at nothing less than global rulership an thiknks that is a natural direction at which evolutuon is drifting anyway. One could realyl say that Muslim aggression is just an attempt to help nature to unfold in the way Allah has already decided anyway, you see.

daresay that you allow your general disdain for religion to be focused upon Islam as a whipping-boy. I'd even go so far as to say that you may allow your disdain for societal views that are not your own to be impressed upon religion, and from there to Islam. I could be wrong, and it is not my place to judge, but it is a question worth asking yourself.

Since years I am saying that Islam is not just any relgion, but that it is more politics and social control than anything else. My disdain for relgion comes due to it's anti-intzellectualism, the rejection of the human mind and dignity, and its lack of reason and logic. the method I prefer to deal with the world is that of our ancient greek heritage: Ratio, logic, the scientific methodology. Allm this can be targetted as an argument against islam, too, yes, but if you still have not understood that islam stands out from the crowd of religions, and that is does not know fundamentlistic lineages, but is fundamentalistic in its most original, natural form and essence, then I do not know how i could make that any more clearer to you or anybody else. As I see it our situation comopares to the era of Rome's fall, caused by the barabars by its gates, but also by econimic patterns and misdevelopements that are disturbingly similar to patterns we observe - if we want to see them - in the present as well. the parallels are stunning. For further info olin that I recommend the formidable anaylsis in Herfried Münkler's "Empires" http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Domina...4&sr=8-2-spell. Over the years I had several books on the rise and fall of empires, but this is by far the best that I have ever read.

Fundamentalist Christians, IMO, are just the evolved version of fundamentalist Muslims. Some still commit horrific acts, just not on such a broad scale and not so indiscriminately. Many are just blatantly stupid, and I have a hard time calling them fellows. As time passes, they, too, are being phased out.

Simply wrong you are. I have explained, why. In this thread, any many times before.

As long as you can say that and as long as there are politicians, I reserve my right to present Jesus' teachings to any willing to listen. If you don't want to listen, that's fine, we'll pray for you anyway,

I love this bigot arrogance and haughtiness behind this remark that I hear time and again. what you say in reality, is this: "You may not believe in my god, but my god nevertheless is so right and so winderful that he even can love you still." Shove it.

If poeplöe approach and ask you aboiut it, it is okay you answer their questions. But oif oyu enter the npoublic sühere where I have the same right to be like oyu have, then we both have to behave in a way that the other must not bother our presence. That emasn, you keep yopur radio so silent that you do not interfere with the radion listenin of other people, and then the other people will do the same for you, and cointrol their radios. But when you seriously expect that just beasue you think the place is yours anybody not wanting tom loisten to aour radio needs to leave and shall not use this public sopace, then I'll set up a fight.

It is in this point that we have another fundamental difference, Sky. I believe that society is best advanced by the spontaneous experimentation that freedom generates, while you seem to think there is some system by which it is best accomplished.

My argument on freedom is that freedom ends where freedom is used to destroy freedom. This implies, in this context, that I reject the idea of unlimited freedom - with regard to this implication. See my exchange with Steve some days ago. I once again refer to Poppers tolerance paradoxon and freedom paradoxon as well, that I have quoted releatedly now.

I would no more readily condemn Islam, or religion in general, or Newtonian Physics, or Quantum mechanics to the dustbin of history any more readily than I would condemn you or myself.

do not comlare scientiifc theory-building and religious dogmas. and betetr do not even comolare islam and other relgions. It is absurd, it simply does not compare.

You don't know whether or not there is a God, and neither do I. Neither one of us could even define such an entity; and where you see short-sightedness on my part for assuming that there is a higher intelligence, I see short-sightedness on yours for assuming there isn't Nobody knows what is out there.

I again refer to the ancient Greek trsdition of scientific methodlogy that is beeing sued until today. It has brought us much more relief from misery and disease, than any religion ever has. It has given us a billion times more insight into the universe, than and relgious dogma ever has. And scientific methodlogy hardly has ever been the reason for cimmititing the worst atrocities and the biggest bloodblaths known in human history. You want to increase that status of relgion by trying to see equal the assumnption of God existing being the same like the assumption that God doies not exist. but you have one problem there. you are not even basing on an observation that god exists. Thus you cannot form a hypothesis oin any grounds.Thus no theory. And since you cannot form a theory in a scientific, nobody has any need to prove oyur theory wrong in orer to propve that God does not exist. Becasue you have no theory. I'm sorry, but your belief already disqualifies at the very first hurlde or scientifc, and i also would say: rational thinking. I must no prve anything, James. you are the one claimning that God exists. The burden of evidence is up to you, completely. I have not made any observation that there is a god or not. You make the claim, so you miust come up with observation, hypothesis, testing it, theory-buiolding and model-building, then using it for poredcitions and then check again if the model predicts correctly or not. You would need to undergo this process in order to be taken serious in your cliam or belief. but you cannot. On the other hand. I would not need to do the same for atheism, because I claim nothing. My obervation is that I observe nothing when looking for God. Since i lack any ohenomenenon to observe, I form no hypthesis on God existing or not exosting, I form no theory of non-God or god, and form no model to predict non-god or God. It simply is something that does not even exist as a question to me. I would only need to show that if you would be able to form a model to predict a phenomenon (and explaining it with god) thati can explain the facts of your theory in a better wy with a model of mine - that of science. And as a matter of fact, science has done that, not with relgion'S scinrtiifxc models (it has none), but with its mere claims.

Religion and science do not compare. Science is coinstantly checking temporary models and theories, and if needed, correcting or replacing them. Religion is claming eternal truths that should be lasting forever, unchecked, unquestioned, not rationally analysed, but simply believed.

I see an inevitable system of little biological machines generated by an unimaginably vast array of laboratories that inevitably create ever more complex biological machines that all have the goal of producing greater order from leser order or disorder. I see divinity in life itself, and I see the divinity in the message of life that Jesus preached. I do not violate your freedom by telling you that, as you have the choice whether or not to believe it, or anything else that I say. At most you could arrogantly dismiss me as being annoying.

However, I see something else, as well. I see a perfectly good and large segment of the human population being labeled as worthy of destruction (in belief, if not in person) for the sole reason that someone sees it as a shortcut. Why not afford Islam the chances that have been given to us? Trade with them freely, let them integrate, and the destructive nature of their ideology will disappear. I guarantee you that.

If you have read until here and indeed understood a bit what I tried to say, you understand why I do not even answer to this nonsense paragraph. You once again see islam as somethign that it simply is not.