157 replies to this topic

[Phil]

Gee yeah Mathijs, stop being so politically correct and taking all sides and facts into account, instead of expressing a one-sided, narrow-minded, biased point of view.

Here's some food for thought on the gay issue: Wikipedia: Sodomy laws in the United States. Man, the US must be one hell of a Muslim country! Oh wait, that was the Christians. My bad...

[Hostile]

Gee yeah Mathijs, stop being so politically correct and taking all sides and facts into account, instead of expressing a one-sided, narrow-minded, biased point of view.

Here's some food for thought on the gay issue: Wikipedia: Sodomy laws in the United States. Man, the US must be one hell of a Muslim country! Oh wait, that was the Christians. My bad...

Google the muslim penalty for sodomy...
http://www.google.co...QAAAKoEBU_Qg5JG

No sense in including one site like you did, I simply included the whole Google response.

I do notice quite obviously though that in the HUNDREDS of threads that did nothing but call Christians idiots, crazy, and hideously attacking anyone who professed to be Christian to the point of embarrassment until they left Revora, who even mentioned maybe we should ease up a bit? I watched it for YEARS here. Even when I tried to stick up for them a bit about being somewhat tolerant of Christians, I was accused of being an idiotic Bible thumper even though I am clearly agnostic.

So I find it somewhat ironic that all of a sudden all the atheists are defending the one religion (Islam) that would put any atheist or homosexual to DEATH if given the chance. Who are we trying to protect again?

[Caspa]

Revora's political correct constituency.

... what?

At risk of causing a severe disturbance in the Force, I'm inclined to agree with Matius here.

If you make provocative art, it should have some purpose other than to offend.

Why? I'm not asking for provocative art anyway. I'm asking for blatantly offensive art. Art needs no higher purpose. True art exists only for no other reason than itself, so offensive art only needs to exist for the purpose of offending.

This was the case with Theo van Gogh's movie 'Submission' and Jyllands-Posten's drawings of Mohammed (the 'Motoons').
The drawings from 'Everybody draw Mohammed Day' was a response to the censorship of South Park episodes picturing Mohammed and other religious figures, and as such a defense for freedom of expression.
Blah blah blah, hibbidy hooplah de blah blah blah. What a load of fucking bollocks. Seriously, I could start talking about fucking Sesame Street midway through this and nobody would ever notice.
Blah blah blah. Diddly doo, diddly doo. Load of bollocks that nobody cares about and fuck me, why's everybody glossing over this without any regard for the time I took to type out all this crap?
The photographs were part of an extensive collection of images of Pingu in his little igloo. Another part of the exhibit was a video of Pingu throwing snowballs at his dad.

Seriously, I couldn't care less. In case you couldn't tell from the tone of my previous post in this thread, I'm not really in the mood for a geo-political discussion on religion.
I just want to insult and belittle a religion, purely because it's followers are taking themselves a little too seriously, and this seems like an appropriate thread for such actions.

Talk about Pakistan face-book ban eh?

Why? I couldn't really give two shits about that either. The facebook ban isn't gonna stop me from buying a newspaper and milk from the corner shop in the morning, is it?

Gee yeah Mathijs, stop being so politically correct and taking all sides and facts into account, instead of expressing a one-sided, narrow-minded, biased point of view.

Yeah, get with the Revora way already

So I find it somewhat ironic that all of a sudden all the atheists are defending the one religion (Islam) that would put any atheist or homosexual to DEATH if given the chance. Who are we trying to protect again?

Yeah, it's pretty disgusting, isn't it Eric. Maybe they're afraid Jihad Joe will bomb them.

Edited by Hostile, 01 July 2010 - 09:18 AM.

[Námo]

I do notice quite obviously though that in the HUNDREDS of threads that did nothing but call Christians idiots, crazy, and hideously attacking anyone who professed to be Christian to the point of embarrassment until they left Revora, who even mentioned maybe we should ease up a bit? I watched it for YEARS here. Even when I tried to stick up for them a bit about being somewhat tolerant of Christians, I was accused of being an idiotic Bible thumper even though I am clearly agnostic.

So I find it somewhat ironic that all of a sudden all the atheists are defending the one religion (Islam) that would put any atheist or homosexual to DEATH if given the chance. Who are we trying to protect again?

QFT

Thanks, Eric.

[Námo]

Here's some food for thought on the gay issue ...

Guardian, Wednesday 23 June 2010: US and UK failing to take Iraq's gay pogrom seriously.

extract:

Africa is the "gay international issue du jour" and that's a good thing, but the absence of any attention – any – to Iraq screams out for explanation. Iraqi LGBT has documented 738 killings in five years, similar numbers to those suffered by Iraq's Christian minority. Yet Iraq's state-colluded pogrom of gays isn't the subject of demonstrations by the international gay community, sustained actions by international human rights organisations, protests by lesbian or gay celebrities or even fundraising for "safe houses" – though they have one major funder, the Dutch humanist charity, Hivos.

Ali Hili, Iraq's LGBT leader, said "people in the west have been too quiet for too long about the violence against LGBT people in Iraq. The militia and the powers that be know they can get away with it while that silence continues."

[Phil]

I do notice quite obviously though that in the HUNDREDS of threads that did nothing but call Christians idiots, crazy, and hideously attacking anyone who professed to be Christian to the point of embarrassment until they left Revora, who even mentioned maybe we should ease up a bit? I watched it for YEARS here. Even when I tried to stick up for them a bit about being somewhat tolerant of Christians, I was accused of being a idiotic Bible thumper even though I am clearly agnostic.

So I find it someone ironic that all of a sudden all the atheists are defending the one religion (Islam) that would put any atheist or homosexual to DEATH if given the chance. Who are we trying to protect again?

Firstly, how are we defending Islam? All we are (or certainly I am) saying is that if you criticise Islam for its backward views, you have to be consistent also see that every other religion has such views. I do have a problem if people criticise Islam for being Islam. Without even realising that our awesome western religions are just as dumb.

I make a clear distinction between a moderate and tolerant way of living your religion and all the religious nutjobs. I'd fight extreme Muslims just as I'd fight extreme Christians or extreme Jews or extreme secular right-wingers, because all of them collide with my very liberal views. That's also why I want a secular state with secular schools, but grant every religion equal protection in society. History shows people can't live without some kind of belief in the supernatural, so better make sure it's in an educated, reasonable framework where other values stand at the core for political decisions.

So that's where I and some other people here seem to differ. I judge the way individual people live their religion and the whole bundle of opinions and views that result from it. Other people try to compare old books, dead letters so to say, by showing what the worst extremists in the world have done in the name of that book. I find my way of comparing people a lot more convincing...

Here's some food for thought on the gay issue ...

Guardian, Wednesday 23 June 2010: US and UK failing to take Iraq's gay pogrom seriously.

extract:

Africa is the "gay international issue du jour" and that's a good thing, but the absence of any attention – any – to Iraq screams out for explanation. Iraqi LGBT has documented 738 killings in five years, similar numbers to those suffered by Iraq's Christian minority. Yet Iraq's state-colluded pogrom of gays isn't the subject of demonstrations by the international gay community, sustained actions by international human rights organisations, protests by lesbian or gay celebrities or even fundraising for "safe houses" – though they have one major funder, the Dutch humanist charity, Hivos.

Ali Hili, Iraq's LGBT leader, said "people in the west have been too quiet for too long about the violence against LGBT people in Iraq. The militia and the powers that be know they can get away with it while that silence continues."

Nice article, but how exactly is that a reply to my point? You're not trying to tell me that because evil Muslims kill more gays than Christians do, Islam must be the worse religion, are you?

[Mathijs]

So I find it someone ironic that all of a sudden all the atheists are defending the one religion (Islam) that would put any atheist or homosexual to DEATH if given the chance. Who are we trying to protect again?

Once again... ...what?

Really, what? You and Namo are just embarassing yourselves. I have not seen any "atheist" on here defending extremist Islam. Just because we (or I, at least) like to view these things from a bird's eye perspective and feign at least some objective standpoint doesn't mean I am the communist atheist politically correct moron you like to portray me as. You have been putting words in my mouth lately. I have repeated this several times over, I DO NOT AGREE WITH EXTREMIST ISLAM VIEWS. But! I do not agree with blindly lumping a whole lot of people (like Namo is doing) into three categories because I frankly refuse to believe that people (especially here in the good old West) are so defined by their religion that their basic empathic instincts are all gone. In other words, I don't believe someone is automatically bad just because he's a muslim, which is, and I'm sorry to have to say this, pretty much what you're doing. I know, I know, you think I hate Christians (I don't really, I just think anyone, including muslims, who really believes their religious bullshit is kind of an idiot, but not automatically EVIL) and you'll be jumping up and down to tell me I'm a hypocrite, but you are just blind in your stupid, Fox News induced rage. You actually made a muslim bash topic about a group of muslims trying to show that their religion can be modern and reasonable. What more do you want? For every muslim to just roll over and die?
I mean, Namo now believes that no matter what a muslim tells him, he is clearly lying because of that defense mechanism he discovered in the Quran, you know, it's allowed to lie when Islam is threatened? How fucked up is that? To believe that some ancient book completely, utterly overrides any sense a person might have, and dismiss their claims just because that book says it's okay to lie?

I mean I really do hate both Christianity and Islam for their unforgivable ignorance, both philosophically and biologically, but not the individual who was coerced into buying their bullshit. I just think they're stupid for doing so, but once again, I do not hate them for it. There is a very obvious difference between the individual and the dogma. I hate ignorance in general, which is the reason I am always rallying against your worthless opinions.

Anything you don't agree with is automatically politically correct and thus inherently evil and socially unacceptable. Anything that challenges your views by offering a more objective, distanced and less FURIOUSSSS standpoint, is muslim propaganda.

It must suck to live a life so fraught with peril and unreasonable fear. I mean, I'm pretty afraid of things as well but you're just full of shit.

I mean the very fact that you deal in meaningless absolutes like good and evil makes me rage. Your complete inability to view things from the other side of the fence. To see things from a more global and historical perspective. To see and understand that this too shall pass, like everything that has passed before it. How you think that this is important. It almost makes me laugh.

Edited by Matias, 30 June 2010 - 03:43 PM.

[Pasidon]

Bunching atheists into one category is just as politically correct as categorizing Islam as a 'non-hostile hostile religious sphere of cooperative non-terrorists'. ... Meaning it's stupid too do.

The station will be called Mohammad after the Prophet [...] and it is our scientific response for the negative stereotyping against the prophet

[laugh track]

[Phil]

Please, try to make a real argument (or stay out of the thread), will you?

[Pasidon]

Who's that geared towards? No matter... its significant. Matias is making the point that we realize that Muslim should be stratified into different classes so we're not calling all of them goat bombers and yet he, a stratification of the atheist group, finds the stereotyping atheists into one mind set is hypocritical. I put my agreement in ridiculous terms as usual, so realism maintained, conversation left in mint condition, the debate continues.

[Vortigern]

...What? Does anyone have a Pasidon-to-English dictionary handy, because I'm really struggling with these last couple. Why do you need an 'and yet' in there? Matias doesn't like people stereotyping Muslims, and he doesn't like being stereotyped as an atheist. Where's the contrast in there? Where's the need for any use of the word 'hypocritical'? What the hell are you talking about?

[Hostile]

...What? Does anyone have a Pasidon-to-English dictionary handy, because I'm really struggling with these last couple. Why do you need an 'and yet' in there? Matias doesn't like people stereotyping Muslims, and he doesn't like being stereotyped as an atheist. Where's the contrast in there? Where's the need for any use of the word 'hypocritical'? What the hell are you talking about?

If you can't understand what is being said, than why do you feel you have to reply?

[Vortigern]

Because I've been following this whole discussion and have understood everything so far, just not what Pasidon has said. I just wanted a bit of clarification, or failing that, comprehensible English.

[Mathijs]

Who's that geared towards? No matter... its significant. Matias is making the point that we realize that Muslim should be stratified into different classes so we're not calling all of them goat bombers and yet he, a stratification of the atheist group, finds the stereotyping atheists into one mind set is hypocritical. I put my agreement in ridiculous terms as usual, so realism maintained, conversation left in mint condition, the debate continues.

Jesus Christ you're dumb. My point was that I don't agree with extremist Islam, but that I don't agree with the extreme opinions of Hostile and Namo either because the world just isn't that black and white. I never said anything about muslims that should be put into different classes. I'm not a fascist.

Edited by Matias, 01 July 2010 - 12:10 PM.

[Phil]

I think he meant "classes" as in "secular", "moderate", "extreme", etc.

And honestly, I've been sitting on a draft of this post for about 10 minutes, coming up with three possible explanations of what his argument could have been, but now I have to give up. I had my lines already written out but then realised the third option doesn't make any sense either... So please Pasidon, just state in clear, plain, comprehensible English what you wanted to say. It's really not helpful to make funny cryptic posts in a debate where people need to understand one's line of thought to find flaws in it and point them out.

[Caspa]

Because I've been following this whole discussion and have understood everything so far

Even my Pingu flavoured comment?

[Hostile]

Who's that geared towards? No matter... its significant. Matias is making the point that we realize that Muslim should be stratified into different classes so we're not calling all of them goat bombers and yet he, a stratification of the atheist group, finds the stereotyping atheists into one mind set is hypocritical. I put my agreement in ridiculous terms as usual, so realism maintained, conversation left in mint condition, the debate continues.

Jesus Christ you're dumb. My point was that I don't agree with extremist Islam, but that I don't agree with the extreme opinions of Hostile and Namo either because the world just isn't that black and white. I never said anything about muslims that should be put into different classes. I'm not a fascist.

Matias, my trusted friend, why do you think I have an extreme opinion? Because it is different than yours? Is your opinion extreme? I simply believe that the focus of our attention doesn't need to be Christians anymore, I believe Muslims are now the endless source of "laughter" fodder in "our" campaign against organized religion.

Which extreme opinion are you willing to agree with? If I agree with you, will that make me correct in your point of view? If I regurgitate everything you say, will that make me correct in your eyes?

[Mathijs]

I think your opinion is extreme because it negatively generalizes a whole bunch of individuals, even if those people do things that go against your initial reasons for disliking them, such as that reality show. This makes it seem as if you are unwilling to give any ground to positive aspects. Basically, your opinion stands no matter what people do. Same goes for Namo, in a way.

So no, your opinion is not extreme because it differs from mine. For example, Allathar's opinion is usually very different from mine, but I don't consider him extreme because his viewpoint is often a lot less biased.

Edited by Matias, 02 July 2010 - 03:09 AM.