Is the Critique of Islam Islamophobic?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Is the Critique of Islam Islamophobic?

Post by surreptitious57 »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
according to biochemistry sugar is a poison to the human body
Anything that exists naturally within the body will not harm it as long as it exists at the optimum level
Too much or too little though can be life threatening and this is as true of sugar as it is of anything else
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is the Critique of Islam Islamophobic?

Post by Sculptor »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:28 am Fear is an automatic emotional and biological response to a situation
And it can be either rational or irrational depending on that situation
Allowing the possibility that fear could be rational is a complete abuse of language.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is the Critique of Islam Islamophobic?

Post by Sculptor »

As a sculptor I find Islam a complete and irrational anathema to my work, since it takes literally the Old Testament exhortation that "graven Images" are profane.
I understand that some Imams have even gone so far as to condemn Snow Men, and children in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to draw flowers and animals.
Yet most Muslims don't give a damn, like Jews they take such things with a pinch of salt.
Jacob Epstein didn't care much for that particular proscription. There was even a time when Protestants took that very seriously and burned images of Jesus on the cross, throwing out all statuary from the grounds of churches.

Generally most people are decent and just want to live their lives. Even some Christians can be trusted not to come to my door without a burning cross.

For my money every bloody religion should be swept from the earth. Sadly there are many idiots who prefer to peddle hate, like the person starting this thread.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is the Critique of Islam Islamophobic?

Post by Sculptor »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
according to biochemistry sugar is a poison to the human body
Total rubbish born of shocking ignorance.
No biochemist would ever say that, since no biochemist could even form the words without some sugar in the cells of the body to help him think and move his lips.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4475
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is the Critique of Islam Islamophobic?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:52 pm
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:28 am Fear is an automatic emotional and biological response to a situation
And it can be either rational or irrational depending on that situation
Allowing the possibility that fear could be rational is a complete abuse of language.
The purpose of language is a tool of communication between two are more persons.
There is no abuse of language as long as one understand the others by whatever language they use.
There is only an abuse of language where there is an agreed formal structured of language with specific rules.

The term 'rational fear' is commonly used by many and easily understood by most. As such there is no abuse of language in this case.

You don't seem to understand the term 'rational' and its applications.
Rational = based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
The grounds of reason is biology and grounded on survival.
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology

The fear emotion exists as an emotion which a specific algorithm but interconnected with many other neural circuits.
The fear emotion is triggered by stimuli from external, internal [learned, experience or perceived].
The triggered fear emotion generate internal neural and visceral activities.
The person will respond instinctively to the above internal activities.
Then these activities are felt as 'fear'.
The person respond consciously to the feeling of fear.

A. The general purpose of the fear emotion is to facilitate survival ultimately.
On review using reason and logic;
-any reactions in respond to fear which is in alignment with A is rational,
-any reactions in respond to fear which is not in alignment with A is irrational,
-any mis-perception as a stimuli that triggered fear is irrational fear, e.g. fear upon seeing a rope mis-perceived as a snake.

Thus the fear of the ideology of Islam based on the terrible atrocities, evil and violent acts committed by Muslims inspired by it inherent evil laden element, is very rational.
This fear of the ideology of Islam is in alignment with A, i.e. the ideology of Islam as evident and proven is a threat to humanity.

Thus the term 'Islamophobia' [an irrational fear of Islam] is a falsehood because the fear of the ideology of Islam is very rational.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4475
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is the Critique of Islam Islamophobic?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:01 pm As a sculptor I find Islam a complete and irrational anathema to my work, since it takes literally the Old Testament exhortation that "graven Images" are profane.
I understand that some Imams have even gone so far as to condemn Snow Men, and children in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to draw flowers and animals.
Yet most Muslims don't give a damn, like Jews they take such things with a pinch of salt.
Jacob Epstein didn't care much for that particular proscription. There was even a time when Protestants took that very seriously and burned images of Jesus on the cross, throwing out all statuary from the grounds of churches.

Generally most people are decent and just want to live their lives. Even some Christians can be trusted not to come to my door without a burning cross.

For my money every bloody religion should be swept from the earth. Sadly there are many idiots who prefer to peddle hate, like the person starting this thread.
You views above are based on an ignorance of what the ideology of Islam is.
The ideology of Islam is an ideology of hatred, evil and violence, how can a critique of such a hate ideology be regarded as hatred?

Upon research and supported with evidence, it is proven the ideology of Islam is inherently malignant and has an ethos of evil, hatred and violent directed contemptuosly against non-Muslim.

Comparatively, the ideology of Islam is more evil and loaded with more hatred for the 'other' [the 'them' i.e. non-Muslims] than Nazism's hatred for Jews and others.

The critique of Islam is not about Muslims but merely on the ideology itself. The majority of Muslims are good human beings.

The seriousness of the problem is;

Genetically, all humans has the potential to commit evil and violence.
A significant % [conservatively 20%] of all humans are born with an active evil tendency. Thus 20% of Muslims, i.e. there is a pool of 300 [of 1.5 b] evil prone Muslims.

The recipe for atrocities, evil and violent acts from Muslims is this?
  • 1. There is a natural pool of 300 million evil prone Muslims who
    2. Must comply with the commands of Allah to qualify for eternal life in heave, exposed to
    3. An ideology of commands from Allah with an ethos of hate against non-Muslim.
What is CRITICAL within the ideology of Islam specifically is Muslims are 'incentivized' with extraordinary and multi-folds rewards if they warred against and killed non-Muslims under condition of threats [fasadin] which are vague defined.
This is where the evil prone Muslims [ a pool of 300 million] will naturally take up the offer to war against and kill non-Muslims and if they become martyrs that will qualify for higher rewards.
[evidence available for the above claims].

This recipe of hate, evil and violence against non-Muslims had already compelled Muslim to kill >200 millions non-Muslims since Islam emerged till the present.
Note the latest stats [subject to a margin of error];
Image

In addition, the ideology of Islam has provisions and potential for extremists Muslims to exterminate the human species, since whatever happen to them, they will be well rewarded in paradise with eternal life. Fact is, it is getting easier for interest groups to get access to cheap WMDs [nuclear and bio] in the near future.

Prove to me the points I had present is false, then I will agree with you that there is no real concern with the ideology of Islam.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8767
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: my deism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:57 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:31 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:12 am
Here is a review of the book in opposition to the arguments presented;
So let's get this straight. You still have no idea what the arguments are. You just fished up someone to tell you that they don't like them...and him, you believe.

Oy vey.
What??

Hey! Didn't you notice I provided my reasons why I believe the arguments in the book are not tenable.
Heh. :D You did not such thing. What you did was merely mention a reviewer speaking about arguments you hadn't personally read at all.

That's obviously not a thoughtful and informed response, and certainly not your own "reasons". It's a blind trusting of the reviewer -- no more.

However, it was you who asked for the arguments in the first place. I trust your interest when you asked was not so disingenuous that you actually had no intention of investigating for yourself at all... :?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is the Critique of Islam Islamophobic?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:50 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:01 pm As a sculptor I find Islam a complete and irrational anathema to my work, since it takes literally the Old Testament exhortation that "graven Images" are profane.
I understand that some Imams have even gone so far as to condemn Snow Men, and children in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to draw flowers and animals.
Yet most Muslims don't give a damn, like Jews they take such things with a pinch of salt.
Jacob Epstein didn't care much for that particular proscription. There was even a time when Protestants took that very seriously and burned images of Jesus on the cross, throwing out all statuary from the grounds of churches.

Generally most people are decent and just want to live their lives. Even some Christians can be trusted not to come to my door without a burning cross.

For my money every bloody religion should be swept from the earth. Sadly there are many idiots who prefer to peddle hate, like the person starting this thread.
You views above are based on an ignorance of what the ideology of Islam is.
There's none as stupid as yourself
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4475
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: my deism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 2:47 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:57 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:31 am
So let's get this straight. You still have no idea what the arguments are. You just fished up someone to tell you that they don't like them...and him, you believe.

Oy vey.
What??

Hey! Didn't you notice I provided my reasons why I believe the arguments in the book are not tenable.
Heh. :D You did not such thing. What you did was merely mention a reviewer speaking about arguments you hadn't personally read at all.

That's obviously not a thoughtful and informed response, and certainly not your own "reasons". It's a blind trusting of the reviewer -- no more.

However, it was you who asked for the arguments in the first place. I trust your interest when you asked was not so disingenuous that you actually had no intention of investigating for yourself at all... :?
I did not rely on the reviewer's conclusion of the book.
What I relied upon was the reviewer giving a summary of what the book is about.

As mentioned by the reviewer [unless you dispute] the whole book is about the various arguments for the existence of God from various authors.

I relied upon Kant's assertion [which I understand and agrees], it is impossible to prove the existence of God as real empirically and philosophically via any argument.
* Kant is the greatest [if not, among the top most] Western philosopher of all times, thus there is some authority and credibility.

Thus the focus is now whether what Kant assert is true or not?
I don't have to waste time understanding all the arguments [which I know most].

I am not familiar with those using modal and symbolic logic, but as I stated whatever conclusions they arrive at on the existence of God, it is always a conditional conclusion, i.e. conditional upon the framework [invented by humans].
But God cannot be a conditional God, because God by definition is absolutely unconditional.

You got any counter to the above?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4475
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is the Critique of Islam Islamophobic?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:04 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:50 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:01 pm As a sculptor I find Islam a complete and irrational anathema to my work, since it takes literally the Old Testament exhortation that "graven Images" are profane.
I understand that some Imams have even gone so far as to condemn Snow Men, and children in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to draw flowers and animals.
Yet most Muslims don't give a damn, like Jews they take such things with a pinch of salt.
Jacob Epstein didn't care much for that particular proscription. There was even a time when Protestants took that very seriously and burned images of Jesus on the cross, throwing out all statuary from the grounds of churches.

Generally most people are decent and just want to live their lives. Even some Christians can be trusted not to come to my door without a burning cross.

For my money every bloody religion should be swept from the earth. Sadly there are many idiots who prefer to peddle hate, like the person starting this thread.
You views above are based on an ignorance of what the ideology of Islam is.
There's none as stupid as yourself
I will accept I am stupid, if you can provide the argument 'VA is stupid'.
But as usual you are always throwing statements without justification.

Kant had a simple definition for stupidity, i.e. not intelligent.
To Kant, stupidity [in degrees] it the inability of one to subsume an Minor Premise into a justified Major Premise rationally.
This is applicable in everyday situations to avoiding landing in danger.

Just show me where I have not subsumed a Minor Premise within a Major Premise rationally, then I will accept that is stupid and if persistently I will accept I am really stupid.

You have on many occasions failed to subsume the minor premise into a major premise.
Example in this case, where you accused me of being stupid without justifications [did not subsume a minor premise into a major premise], which reflect you are stupid.
I will highlight such when I come across others.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8767
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: my deism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:50 am I did not rely on the reviewer's conclusion of the book.
What I relied upon was the reviewer giving a summary of what the book is about.
In other words, exactly what I said...you didn't read anything, and didn't consider a thing for yourself. You just found a reviewer, and trusted him.
I don't have to waste time understanding all the arguments [which I know most].
Unlike you, I've read the book: the entire thing, cover to cover. The papers in there are at a very high level -- some are really at graduate school level, actually. So I'm darn sure you haven't actually got the foggiest idea what those arguments are, despite your assurances.

I don't mind if you feel the arguments are beyond you. That would simply be admirable humility. But to pretend they don't exist, or that you don't have to consider them for yourself and can just read some simplistic reviewer and know all you need to know...well, that speaks for itself.

Anyway, one thing you know: the arguments exist, and exist in sophisticated form. If you don't want to face them, then no more can be said.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4475
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: my deism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:50 am I did not rely on the reviewer's conclusion of the book.
What I relied upon was the reviewer giving a summary of what the book is about.
In other words, exactly what I said...you didn't read anything, and didn't consider a thing for yourself. You just found a reviewer, and trusted him.
I trusted the reviewer [after reading the notes from the Amazon link] that the whole book is a collection of arguments for God's existence. Was he wrong?
I don't have to waste time understanding all the arguments [which I know most].
Unlike you, I've read the book: the entire thing, cover to cover. The papers in there are at a very high level -- some are really at graduate school level, actually. So I'm darn sure you haven't actually got the foggiest idea what those arguments are, despite your assurances.

I don't mind if you feel the arguments are beyond you. That would simply be admirable humility. But to pretend they don't exist, or that you don't have to consider them for yourself and can just read some simplistic reviewer and know all you need to know...well, that speaks for itself.

Anyway, one thing you know: the arguments exist, and exist in sophisticated form. If you don't want to face them, then no more can be said.
If the whole book comprised of the range of arguments for God's existence, then I can take it as that.
Because I am convinced ALL arguments for God are impossible to prove God's existence, why can't I rely on this conclusion to counter the theme of the whole book.

Note my argument;
  • 1. All arguments for the existence of God are impossible to prove God is real empirically and philosophically real.

    2. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology is all about the arguments for the existence of God.

    3. Therefore The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology will not [is impossible] prove God exists as real empirically and philosophically.
Note I did read the summary from Amazon before reading the reviewer's information about the book;
  • With the help of in-depth essays from some of the world's leading philosophers, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology explores the nature and existence of God through human reason and evidence from the natural world.

    Provides in-depth and cutting-edge treatment of natural theology's main arguments
    Includes contributions from first-rate philosophers well known for their work on the relevant topics

    Updates relevant arguments in light of the most current, state-of-the-art philosophical and scientific discussions

    Stands in useful contrast and opposition to the arguments of the 'new atheists'
    https://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Compan ... B003VIWZEM
So the above confirms the review information that the books is totally about the various arguments for the existence of God. You dispute this?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8767
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: my deism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:34 am Because I am convinced ALL arguments for God are impossible to prove God's existence, why can't I rely on this conclusion to counter the theme of the whole book.
You have every right to go on wish, preference and prejudice rather than facts or knowledge.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4475
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: my deism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:26 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:34 am Because I am convinced ALL arguments for God are impossible to prove God's existence, why can't I rely on this conclusion to counter the theme of the whole book.
You have every right to go on wish, preference and prejudice rather than facts or knowledge.
I have presented arguments that are supported by facts, knowledge, rationality and philosophical consideration.

Your argument is merely grounded on an illusion, i.e. the illusory God and ultimately a psychological defense mechanism within your brain.

Note whatever arguments presented by the authors in the book will fall into a fallacy of equivocation [Kant], .e.g.
  • 1. Scientific facts confirm X exists. [empirical]
    2. X is an attribute of God. [equivocating 'empirical' with 'transcendent']
    3. Therefore God [transcendent] exists [empirical].
Those theologians and theists who rely on Science [empirical only] to infer a transcendent God [transcendent] exists as real [empirical] is committing a fallacy of equivocation.
W. L. Craig is very famous in resorting to this subtle deception.

It is the same for those who rely on symbolic and modal logic which equivocate from logic [reason] to the empirical.
Note Hume's one cannot establish a reasoned logical 'ought' from and to 'is'.
Also note the dichotomy of 'empiricism' versus 'rationalism' where the twain will never ever interact.

If the whole book is ALL about arguments for the existence of God as real, then they cannot be true because they inherently commit the fallacy of equivocation.

In addition, I have proven God is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically.

I have counter argued extensively, the basis for the emergence of the idea of god is merely to soothe the psychological existential crisis.
This is just like parents conjuring the idea of Santa Claus to cheer children up and that works effectively with results.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8493
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"I have proven God is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically."

Post by henry quirk »

If Crom could be bothered to pay attention: he'd be laughin' his divine ass off (and then he might cook yours with lightnin').
Post Reply