What has abhorrence at such behaviour got to do with atheism? — tom

I'm just trying to understand the source of your motivation for continuously restating contentious platitudes without any attempt at providing critical analysis or thought to accompany them. Do you specifically oppose Islam and not other religions whose texts and histories share similar degrees of abhorrence? If not, why not?

Beyond your moral condemnation of Islam, how else ought we oppose it?

I'm just trying to understand the source of your motivation for mostly restating contentious platitudes without any attempt at providing critical analysis or thought to accompany them. Do you specifically oppose Islam and not other religions whose texts and histories share similar degrees of abhorrence? If not, why not? — VagabondSpectre

Maybe we could clarify matters by listing the religions that encourage:

1. Death to apostates.
2, Death to atheists.
3. Death to homosexuals.
4. Death to blasphemers.
5. Paedophilia.
6. Death to witches.
7. Beating of wives.
8. Genitally mutilating girls.
9. Sex slavery of infidels.
10. Murder of Jews.

I could go on, but I'm a bit bored.

What has being an atheist got to do with finding any of this abhorrent?

What has being an atheist got to do with finding any of this abhorrent? — tom

I'm trying to understand if you actually have a position to defend, and if so what it is. If you are a staunch hard-atheist and an anti-theist then I could somewhat understand what your point is in constantly re-posting provocative memes without contributing to the actual discussion beyond that.Burn religion, sure... But if you for instance, condone Christianity, then all I would need to do is repackage your statements and apply them to it in order to show hypocrisy in your position.

I'm forced to ask because you ignore the content of all of my responses in favor of the next verse. Such emotive singing is typical of the digital age; a new oral tradition with which to simplify our understanding of the world.

I'm trying to understand if you actually have a position to defend, — VagabondSpectre

It is alarming that you think that finding that list of atrocities abhorrent needs defending. The very definition of an apologist.

This is the problem, tom: if you blame the religion for the atrocities, it would appear that you're taking the individual human actors off the hook. They aren't to blame. The real villain is the religion which failed to condemn their actions.

Did you not just locate the blame in nowhere land?

This is the problem, tom: if you blame the religion for the atrocities, it would appear that you're taking the individual human actors off the hook. They aren't to blame. The real villain is the religion which failed to condemn their actions.

Did you not just locate the blame in nowhere land? — Mongrel

The only way to bring an end to any destructive inhumane ideology is to subject it to criticism.

In Canada, that is now a crime. In UK it is a crime.

Meanwhile you can go around blaming whoever you like.

Your response is dubious, and we can discuss that if you want. But I wonder if you might address the question I asked. If you blame Islam for a case of gang-rape, does that not let the gang rapers off the hook? It appears the proposition is that we should put Islam on trial for the crime.

Your response is dubious, and we can discuss that if you want. But I wonder if you might address the question I asked. If you blame Islam for a case of gang-rape, does that not let the gang rapers off the hook? It appears the proposition is that we should put Islam on trial for the crime. — Mongrel

I see. You are more concerned with who I choose to blame than solving a growing problem. Who I choose to blame is irrelevant. The only way to progress and to save future victims is to subject Islam to the same scrutiny as any ideology.

For example. To save people from slavery, it was necessary to convince Christians that the verses from the Bible that encourage slavery are immoral, in order to prevent them from using their religion as a justification for slavery.

Muhammad took slaves, he took sex slaves, he married a 6yr old, he slaughtered Jews, he demanded death to atheists(polytheists) ... Now all we have to do is convince Muslims that Muhammad was immoral.

I see. You are more concerned with who I choose to blame than solving a growing problem. — tom

For the moment, yes. The question I asked is not a complicated one. I'll take the fact that you won't address it as an admission of a serious weakness in your perspective. Unless you'd like to take a stab at it:

If you blame Islam for a crime, are you saying that the human perpetrators are not responsible for their actions?

Re whether criticising Islam in the UK is 'a crime': From the UK 'Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006':

29J Protection of freedom of expression

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good witch-hunt.

As for Canada, all I can find is the private members' motion M-103, which was passed this month - see here for a report on it by The Independent. It is a non-binding motion expressing disapproval of racism and religious discrimination, with symbolic importance, but no legal consequences. More detail here.

I am inordinately fond of Canadians - even so far as to enjoy their much derided drama series Between - and am very pleased to see continuing evidence of their good sense and high degree of civilisation.

I wasn't trying to virtue signal or anything. I really do think responsibility is an important factor.

It is alarming that you think that finding that list of atrocities abhorrent needs defending. — tom

It's alarming that you think that list of atrocities applies uniformly to Islam, as if the whole 1.5 billion something Muslims would stand behind those values.

It's also alarming how consistently you avoid answering my direct questions; I never asked you to defend that murder, slavery, etc, is abhorrent, I asked you to present a position as to why or how Islam promotes them more so than other religions.

There's nothing wrong with violence if God commands it.

It's not so much that god commands it, but rather that it pleases him because it is in line with some intangible moral perfection that exists high in the cherry tree. And yet the God of any religion happily allows us to ascribe our own moral views to theirs, especially when we want to justify the violence we often desire.

It might take thirty years of war in the Islamic world for all of it's nations, cultures and peoples to realize that violent conflict driven by religious difference and religious ideology is fundamentally unproductive, but once firmly united under that realization should have no trouble clinging to God's more peaceful commandments in the name of progress and reform.

I am inordinately fond of Canadians - even so far as to enjoy their much derided drama series Between - and am very pleased to see continuing evidence of their good sense and high degree of civilisation. — andrewk

Canadians have an unyielding existential need to please people, and it's hard work (sometimes we fail [see: Bieber, Between, Nickelback]). It's not like we're better than everyone else, it's just that we need you to think we are so you will like us.

This is the Canadian practice known as "Tequila", which is where we deceive you into thinking we're "nice" (mostly with strong alcohol, hence the term) until one day when our numbers are sufficient, we will all rise up and politely ask everyone for our dignity back...

I

For example. To save people from slavery, it was necessary to convince Christians that the verses from the Bible that encourage slavery are immoral, in order to prevent them from using their religion as a justification for slavery. — tom

That's seems like an oversimplification of what happened. Modern Christians still look at the Bible now and have to find ways of justifying those verses. Often, you will hear some version of "that was under the old covenant, we are under the new covenant," or "slavery back of antiquity was vastly different from the slavery of today or the slavery of 19th century America." It is similiar to the Old Testament genocides: they cannot be deemed immoral, so they have to somehow be explained into a coherent picture of theology that allows them to say "genocides we see today are immoral." The slavery verses themselves are practically never deemed immoral; the Christian merely has a different way of interpreting them or a theological way of avoiding a commitment to slavery practiced in their societies.

The other big issue is that the people pushing for the abolition of slavery were Christians in some shape or form, or, at the very least, were well within the Western cultural society. Needless to say, the abolitionists were well emplaced within the Christian societies at the time. Though they might have been considered outsiders by the circles supporting slavery, they were not so far outsiders that they could not partake inside the culture effectively.

Furthermore, at least in the United States, it is not as if the pro slavery Christians were convinced by the force of argument to abandon their slaves. They started a war, fought for four years, then were placed under military watch until 1877. We have no idea when the pro-slavery crowd became a fringe minority and racism took over; I doubt that most Southerners would not mind returning to slavery in 1877.

This is to all, and not just tom-

In order to combat radical Islam, we have to have acknowledge three things:

1) Muslims need an avenue that allows them to mantain their faith and interpret their holy texts in such a way that it is practically compatible with modern Western morality. I doubt we will get everything (much like how many Christians are against abortion and gay marriage), but at least things like equality of women and some of the more violent practices. I have no idea how to do this.

2) The promoters of said interpretations need to come from within Muslim communities and have a way to influence the intellectual and social culture of said communities.

3) We have to accept that the only way to stop radical Islam in some cases is through force and conflict. Said force and conflict will probably be costly and come over a long span of time. Again, the opposing side must come from within the community and cannot really be the primary work of an outsider, like the United States.

For the moment, yes. The question I asked is not a complicated one. I'll take the fact that you won't address it as an admission of a serious weakness in your perspective. Unless you'd like to take a stab at it:

If you blame Islam for a crime, are you saying that the human perpetrators are not responsible for their actions? — Mongrel

So you admit to being more concerned with the irrelevancy of to whom I prefer to apportion blame, than to the atrocity of Islamic practice.

Now that we have firmly established your moral compass - i.e. that of an apologist, I'll give you my views on "blame" even though you, as an apologist, cannot comprehend them.

My personal morality is based on a solitary moral conjecture: all evil is caused by a lack of knowledge. Of the varied and deep ramifications of this idea, one is that the concept of "blame" is indicative of a backward and irrational mindset, or rather, infection by anti-rational memes.

Ideas can liberate us or enslave us. The latter are characterised by their ability to cause us to suspend reason. These are the anti-rational memes, of which Islam is a particularly virulent example.

So, among the victims of Islam, I also include the perpetrators.

Well, if the thesis is that the allegedly heinous nature of Islam as revealed in its holy texts is what makes the difference in terms of violence, particularly in comparison to the more benign nature of Christianity, then Catholic Philippines must be a far safer place to be compared to its similarly developed ASEAN neighbour, Muslim Indonesia. Odd then when you look at the statistics that the murder rate in the Philippines is twenty times higher than in Indonesia (and four times higher than Malaysia). Quick, let's all convert to Islam!

I appreciate your raising victims up to be acknowledged. I gather you don't wish to discuss it further... which is fine.

Quick, let's all convert to Islam! — Baden

If you are into paedophilia, beating your wife, and sex-slavery maybe you should.

Or maybe you should become a Christian. The Philippines also happens to be one of the world's major sex tourism centres.

"Government and NGO estimates in 2007 on the number of women trafficked ranged from 300,000 to 400,000 and the number of children trafficked ranged from 60,000 to 100,000"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_the_Philippines

Or maybe you should become a Christian. The Philippines also happens to be one of the world's major sex tourism centres. — Baden

Could you point to the verses in the Bible that promote sex-tourism?

The issue here is sexual violence, against minors in particular, which considering your facetious reply and your consistently empty posts, you don't actually seem to take very seriously. And yes sexual abuse against women and girls is sanctioned in places in the Bible, but seeing as I'm satirizing your thesis not forwarding my own, I'm not obliged to dig that up.

Other major sex trafficking hubs include Thailand and Cambodia, which are Buddhist. Tell me again how it's the religion that's the deciding factor here?

Buddhists and Christians have no problem condemning child molestation. For a Sunni it's trickier because the big M had sex with a 9 year old when he was 54.

A sharia court can't condemn slavery. It just can't. It is a human rights problem.

Maybe and maybe it's tricky for Christians to condemn the rape of virgins after a battle because Moses commanded it. Or maybe you haven't talked to many real life Muslims.

Anyway, let's not leave out Hinduism:

"In January 2010, the supreme court of India stated that India is "becoming a hub" for large-scale child prostitution rackets. It suggested setting up of a special investigating agency to tackle the growing problem.

An article about the Rescue Foundation in New Internationalist magazine states that "according to Save the Children India, clients now prefer 10- to 12-year-old girls".
...
In 2007, the Ministry of Women and Child Development estimated that there are around 2.8 million sex workers in India, with 35.47 percent of them entering the trade before the age of 18 years."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_slavery#Present_day

So, is it the religions to blame here, or something else?

The issue here is sexual violence, against minors in particular, which considering your facetious reply and your consistently empty posts, you don't actually seem to take very seriously. And yes sexual abuse against women and girls is sanctioned in places in the Bible, but seeing as I'm satirizing your thesis not forwarding my own, I'm not obliged to dig that up. — Baden

Could you point out where in the Bible sex tourism is promoted?

I notice that you didn't employ the obvious reply of asking me to point out the verses in the Quran that advocate sex-slavery, slavery, killing, lying, and paedophilia. That would be all too easy. Also several Islamic countries enshrine female degradation and paedophilia in their (Sharia) law.

What countries permit "sexual violence against minors" on religious grounds? You pretend to care about this issue, so surely you know?

This is the problem, tom: if you blame the religion for the atrocities, it would appear that you're taking the individual human actors off the hook. They aren't to blame. The real villain is the religion which failed to condemn their actions.

Did you not just locate the blame in nowhere land? — Mongrel

Presumably this response would apply to those who blame terrorism on, say, Western imperialism or depressed economic conditions? Do those claims likewise try to locate blame in "nowhere land," rather than blaming the perpetrators?

I'm not going to do all your work for you in this discussion seeing as you've been the laziest poster here and provided hardly a thesis not to mind evidence for it. All you've furnished us apart from your disgust of Islam is your disgust for a variety of crimes which we all find disgusting and which we're all against regardless of the causes. So, where do you actually stand? What is your point? Is it that religion, specifically Islam, is a decisive factor in the occurrence of sex slavery worldwide? In murder rates? In wife-beating rates? In violence in general? What? State your position then provide some evidence to back it up.