Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Dee.

What is your POV on theism and vice versa?

Recommended Posts

sivispacem

If I may just quickly add to this: It's not so much the issue that no-one defends Islamic extremism, but rather the deafening silence from Western so-called progressives who purport to stand up for equality rights- rights of which radical Islamists would crush within a second given the chance- not speaking up against this backwards ideology

Again, I find myself questioning whether such people even exist. It strikes me that this whole argument is dimplyva repetition of the "apologism or complicity" tripe trotted out by various people in a misguided attempt to claim that large swathes of the Muslim community are somehow culpable in religious extremism simply because they haven't offered public, grovelling apologies for it's very existence.

 

I don't think I've ever met or experienced a "progressive" as you call it, who has been anything other than critical of IS, their ideology and actions, and of wider extremism as a whole. Can you provide examples of these borderline-mythical individuals?

 

who seem more preoccupied with standing in line with this self-moral-serving, political correctness bollocks

I don't think endowed with logic anyone has ever claimed that "political correctness" prevents people from critiquing violent extremism. It's a theme that constantly crops up in your responses on the subject but not one I've ever seen any evidence to suggest actually exists outside of your imagination in any meaningful way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

There are a few prominent writers and journalists (people like Reza Aslan) who think that there is no link between Islam and extremism and they've made it their goal to defame people who criticize Islam or specific beliefs within Islam even when they cite actual polls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

AFAIK that's not actually what Aslan argues. I don't think he denies the "Islamic" element of Islamic extremism or pretends the religion has no role at all in it; he sees extremism as a political entity rather than a religious one which correlates pretty strongly with his stated views of Islam (and for that matter Christianity and Judaism) being a set of symbols to express a faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

The phrase "Islamic extremism" makes little to no sense if you think Islam doesn't play a significant role in it. He doesn't deny that there is a link there apparently but I've also never heard him talk about how religious beliefs can lead to extreme behavior.

 

Also, some of the stuff he said in the past seems to contradict the fact that he actually believes that there is a link between religion and extreme behavior: https://richarddawkins.net/2014/10/the-inner-workings-of-the-apologist-mindset/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Richard Dawkins at his finest there, straw-manning anyone he can without regard for context or semantics. Nothing about that quote suggests that Aslan believes that morality is intrinsic, as Dawkins claims when he accuses him of apologism, but that morality is a construct of society and culture rather than explicitly of religion. Which makes sense if you view religion as a symbolic representation of spirituality and belief as Aslan does.

 

I also struggle to see how anyone can take issue with the idea that extremism is a product of individuals rather than religion as a wider, overarching concept. There's no fundamental contraction there; he's right in saying that religion itself does not cause people to become extremists because if it did that would do so universally and it clearly and demonstrably doesn't.

 

The fact of the matter is that extremism can be effectively predicted by analysing a number of factors completely independent of religion- social and economic status, perception of being at odds with society, limited education, sociopathy and several other antisocial disorders, criminal history, wider interaction with society and in fact the state of that society. It's effective at predicting religiously-agnostic extremism of all kinds; everything from workplace shootings to Islamic extremism to neo-Nazism. That isn't to say that religion plays no role in defining extremism but it's generally a product of individual belief, however it may be held, conflicting with a person's interpretation of society due to some or all of the above factors which defines their radicalism or extremism.

 

The analysis of the motivations and causes of extremism is becoming a whole doctrine of sociology and psychology. It's very interesting but not the kind of thing which can be boiled down to general simplification.

 

As an aside, I personally think Dawkins is part of the problem here. Whilst he's no doubt a highly intelligent and learned man, he also has a propensity to try and apply his views to subjects he actually has little to no understand of or grounding in. Like extremism. He's also an abysmally poor debater; I urge anyone who gets the opportunity to see him to do so purely to see how not to compose yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

Dawkins didn't write that post. I'm also not a big fan of the guy but I just happened to stumble upon that page when I was looking for Reza's views on extremism (the blog post links to a full article where the quote is taken from).

 

It depends on what specific beliefs and behaviors we are talking about here. I think that killing apostates or dying in the name of the faith are prime examples of religion (Islam) leading people to bad behavior and I don't see how you could explain this behavior without referencing religious texts, especially when people explicitly state why they are doing what they are doing (by citing religious motives). There is nothing extreme about a literal interpretation of religious texts. There are plenty of polls that attest to this (like how significant percentages of Muslims, even in Western countries, think that it is at least sometimes justified to kill noncombatants in defense of the faith). It's also worth noting that whoever you are or wherever you live, if you say something really offensive about Islam you are very likely to be the victim of credible death threats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Well, a Dawkins apostle then. Still happy to commit the same logical fallacies apparently.

 

Thing is, though, takfirism isn't really prevalent in mainstream Islamic thought. It's certainly got a scriptural basis, but it's not actually practice in moderate Islam of any kind. It may be justified by practitioners using scripture but that's fairly typical of religious extremism of all kinds; moreover I don't see it as an actual manifestation of religious belief any more than I would see bombing abortion clinics to be a manifestation of Christianity.

 

Would you consider literal interpretation of the bible to be extreme? I would. The placed of scripture in Islam is very different nowadays to the place of scripture in Christianity but the major schools of thought are still interpretive. Fundamentalism is not a mainstream school of thought in any major religion, actual extremism (the active, aggressive propagation of fundamentalist views in an attempt to undermine political authority) even rarer.

 

The problem is looking at Islam outside of its political and sociological context. You do this and you might conclude there is a genuine problem with the religion but I do wonder how much of that is a product of other factors. I mean, Muslim countries are disproportionately ruled by dictatorial regimes that oppress free speech and personal liberty and often actively stoke sectarianism as a means of population control. They're disproportionately poor, with disproportionately high levels of inequality, tribally divided societies in many cases with long legacies of internal or external conflict. Thanks in part to Western colonialism, there's also never been an age of Islamic enlightenment- in fact we're starting to see one come about at the moment in my view as we see more attempts for mainstream scholars to reconcile Islam with globalis and democracy. Turmoil isn't particular unexpected in societies exhibiting similar characteristics to those above so I do genuinely question how much of what we see is attributable to the religion itself rather than to other socioeconomic and political pressures manifesting themselves in religious sectarianism and strife.

 

I also wouldn't read too much into some of the headline grabbing comments from various surveys. Not without reading the specifics of the actual questions asked. Last time I looked at one of the Pew ones the conclusions made by others often weren't actually supported by the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

The whole line of argument is f*cking laughable. I bet there are no albino support groups which are involved in LGBT rights, does that mean all albinos are homophobic too?

 

I'm glad I never have stated that. Once the argument is put in context it makes very much sense.

 

Consider these facts.

 

1. No Islamic organisation in Sweden allow same-sex marriage. (Homophobia)

2. No Islamic organisation In Sweden allow consenting sex between people of the same sex. (Homophobia)

3. No Islamic Organisation In Sweden allow sexsame relationships. (Homophobia)

4. All Islamic organisations in Sweden have shown signs of homophobia (See Abdirizak Waberi, Omar Mustafa, Swedens Young Muslim, Swedish Muslim Federation etc. see statistics from Swedish Crime Prevention Council, look up investigations regarding homophobia among the majority off Swedish imams ). (Homophobia)

 

My question to make total not war was if there might be a logical progression from 1, 2, 3, 4 to this: (5) No Islamic organisation support LGBT rights. Because according him or her, homophobia is not a particular problem among the muslim community in Sweden.

Edited by Cyper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

 

how come that NO ISLAMIC ORGANISATION in Sweden ever has been involved in LGBT rights? How come that they don't even want to be involved?

They're not obligated to.

 

 

Only if they want funding from the state. Both are beliefs in one single question - the existance of something.

 

Then, of course, they are free to believe what they want. In the same way as racists are free to believe white people are superiour over black people. My point is simply that racism ought to be destroyed as well as racism since they are on a moral point of view equally bad. Any democratic state has a responsibility against it citizens to destroy both racism and homophobia. Muslims are unfortunately posioning the wells of my society.

 

 

 

Then from that follows the misunderstand that since atheism not not offer views on morality and man, it is therefore dangerous. If this was true, it is equally true to say that those who does not believe in santa holds a potentially dangerous belief since the belief that santa does not exist offers no moral codes.

 

Santa does not offer moral codes and one can believe in God without believing in Santa so it's not really the same thing. Being an atheist implies a lack of something that would offer moral codes so that sort of kinda makes it more justified to say that atheism is dangerous vs not believing in Santa is dangerous. Not that I actually think being atheist is dangerous to others. People find moral codes from other things than religion.

 

 

First, it is the same thing. It's in both cases a negotiation in belief of an object/entity. (a disbelief).

 

Secondly, being an atheist does not imply lack of morality since morality does not come from religion. On the other hand, the morality professed in both the Bible and the Quaran is man-made, directly copied and partly changed from other philosophical systemsand ideas.

The ten commandments is a great example of moral codes that existed long before christianity adopted them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

It's still logically flawed. One through three are unsupported statements- you're claiming they all oppose various things but offer no evidence to support that. Four is a sweeping generalisation, again based on apparently nonexistent evidence given that it just seems to be one through three condensed into a single point, and nothing in one through four would leave a rational individual concluding that all Muslims were therefore homophobic. There are very few Catholic organisations worldwide which advocate or tolerate homosexuality and far from a majority of protestant organisations actively support gay marriage, but these organisation can't be construed as actually representing the majority of followers of these religions, can they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyName'sJeff

 

 

how come that NO ISLAMIC ORGANISATION in Sweden ever has been involved in LGBT rights? How come that they don't even want to be involved?

They're not obligated to.

 

 

 

First, it is the same thing. It's in both cases a negotiation in belief of an object/entity. (a disbelief).

 

Secondly, being an atheist does not imply lack of morality since morality does not come from religion. On the other hand, the morality professed in both the Bible and the Quaran is man-made, directly copied and partly changed from other philosophical systemsand ideas.

The ten commandments is a great example of moral codes that existed long before christianity adopted them.

 

It doesn't matter where morality has come from, because you can be an atheist and be an utter c*nt without morals and vice versa. If you're a decent human being that has been educated to the basic standards and raised properly, with no mental issues, you'll have morals. I can't say the same for some people here because it clearly shows you're lacking in one of, or all of the departments that I've posted. And although morality doesn't strictly come from religion alone, you should see how much morals are in Islam, but too bad you can't read it or understand it to save your life and being blinded by fear and delusion. Secondly, you can't prove the Qur'an being man-made because the writing in the Qur'an was technically spoken and then sent down by Allah and then written down in it's exact language by prophets, according to the religion, which you really should have no business debating about considering it's a belief in the first place. Thirdly, even scientists can't and never will be able to prove that the Qur'an was all an idea created by man because there is no evidence in existence which suggests this. Even using logic and common sense, it's impossible to find out if the religion was man made.

Edited by MyName'sJeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

It's still logically flawed. One through three are unsupported statements- you're claiming they all oppose various things but offer no evidence to support that. Four is a sweeping generalisation, again based on apparently nonexistent evidence given that it just seems to be one through three condensed into a single point, and nothing in one through four would leave a rational individual concluding that all Muslims were therefore homophobic. There are very few Catholic organisations worldwide which advocate or tolerate homosexuality and far from a majority of protestant organisations actively support gay marriage, but these organisation can't be construed as actually representing the majority of followers of these religions, can they?

 

First off, I have never stated that all muslims are homophobic. I have stated that the majority of all muslims in Sweden are homophobic.

 

I have then delivered evidence and arguments for for this.

 

First, from the fact that neither samesex relationships or sex between the same gender is allowed in any islamic organisation in Sweden.

 

Second, all scandals among muslim organisations that demostrate intolerance.

 

Third, statistics that demostrate what I say: the majority of muslims are homophobic.

 

https://www.bra.se/download/18.cba82f7130f475a2f1800014106/1371914728508/2004_intolerans.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

First off, I have never stated that all muslims are homophobic. I have stated that the majority of all muslims in Sweden are homophobic.

Except when you say things like:

 

 

In Sweden, at least, there is absolutely no doubt that Islam is the most retarded one, both regarding its view on gender roles, sexuality, and so forth

That sounds pretty unequivocal to me.

 

Even if we ignore this, you've claimed that all Muslim organisations in Sweden are homophobic, and that a majority of Muslims in Sweden are homophobic. Contrary to your assertions, you've provided absolutely no evidence to support either of these points. In fact, you've posted evidentiary proof that the latter one is factually untrue, but I'll come onto that in a minute.

 

 

First, from the fact that neither samesex relationships or sex between the same gender is allowed in any islamic organisation in Sweden.

Which, even if you did provide evidence to indicate it was true, wouldn't constitute evidence that the majority of Muslims are homophobic

 

 

Second, all scandals among muslim organisations that demostrate intolerance.

Which, again, says nothing about the attitudes of the majority of people.

 

 

Third, statistics that demostrate what I say: the majority of muslims are homophobic.

Actually, they don't. They say the exact opposite.

 

At the bottom of page 49 of that PDF document, where the statistics regarding tolerance amongst different religious groups are outlined, we have two columns showing a level of tolerance- "very tolerant" (12.9%) and "tolerant" (42.9%). The cumulative total of these two columns makes 55.8%, which last time I checked was over half of the applicable survey group. So no, the statistics actually demonstrate that a majority of Muslims are tolerant of homosexualty; admittedly a smaller majority than other religious groups but a majority nonetheless.

 

It's interesting to note there's a stronger correlation between students of Individual Program and homophobia than there is Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyName'sJeff

 

It's still logically flawed. One through three are unsupported statements- you're claiming they all oppose various things but offer no evidence to support that. Four is a sweeping generalisation, again based on apparently nonexistent evidence given that it just seems to be one through three condensed into a single point, and nothing in one through four would leave a rational individual concluding that all Muslims were therefore homophobic. There are very few Catholic organisations worldwide which advocate or tolerate homosexuality and far from a majority of protestant organisations actively support gay marriage, but these organisation can't be construed as actually representing the majority of followers of these religions, can they?

 

First off, I have never stated that all muslims are homophobic. I have stated that the majority of all muslims in Sweden are homophobic.

 

I have then delivered evidence and arguments for for this.

 

First, from the fact that neither samesex relationships or sex between the same gender is allowed in any islamic organisation in Sweden.

 

Second, all scandals among muslim organisations that demostrate intolerance.

 

Third, statistics that demostrate what I say: the majority of muslims are homophobic.

 

https://www.bra.se/download/18.cba82f7130f475a2f1800014106/1371914728508/2004_intolerans.pdf

 

Majority of the article isn't even in English, yet you post it. Secondly, there was absolutely nothing there to suggest Muslim homophobia, in fact the tolerant and very tolerant stats were based on the Muslims, so you just made yourself look like an imbecile. That suggests they are tolerant not homophobic. And finally, I know a lot of atheists that don't support LBGT rights or give a sh*t about sexual orientation in the first place, are they homophobic? Most importantly, to make it easier for you, homosexuality is not allowed in Islam, and that's because it says it in the Qur'an, along with the belief that man and women are natural partners, which is even basic to science. However, the Qur'an doesn't say anything that would make a Muslim be homophobic or violent to homosexuals, therefore there isn't a reason to be homophobic in the first place. A lot of Muslim countries have even allowed gay marriage, and that speaks volumes.

Edited by MyName'sJeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

 

 

It's still logically flawed. One through three are unsupported statements- you're claiming they all oppose various things but offer no evidence to support that. Four is a sweeping generalisation, again based on apparently nonexistent evidence given that it just seems to be one through three condensed into a single point, and nothing in one through four would leave a rational individual concluding that all Muslims were therefore homophobic. There are very few Catholic organisations worldwide which advocate or tolerate homosexuality and far from a majority of protestant organisations actively support gay marriage, but these organisation can't be construed as actually representing the majority of followers of these religions, can they?

 

First off, I have never stated that all muslims are homophobic. I have stated that the majority of all muslims in Sweden are homophobic.

 

I have then delivered evidence and arguments for for this.

 

First, from the fact that neither samesex relationships or sex between the same gender is allowed in any islamic organisation in Sweden.

 

Second, all scandals among muslim organisations that demostrate intolerance.

 

Third, statistics that demostrate what I say: the majority of muslims are homophobic.

 

https://www.bra.se/download/18.cba82f7130f475a2f1800014106/1371914728508/2004_intolerans.pdf

 

Majority of the article isn't even in English, yet you post it. Secondly, there was absolutely nothing there to suggest Muslim homophobia, in fact the tolerant and very tolerant stats were based on the Muslims, so you just made yourself look like an imbecile. That suggests they are tolerant not homophobic. And finally, I know a lot of atheists that don't support LBGT rights or give a sh*t about sexual orientation in the first place, are they homophobic? Most importantly, I already clarifed in the last page that homosexuality isn't allowed in Islam because Muslims believe that man and women are the natural partners which already makes bloody sense even more so scientifically because that's how we all came to this world, however, that doesn't make Muslims homophobic because firstly it's part of the faith, and secondly they genuinely don't care if any one is gay or not.

 

 

Only the fact that no Islamic organisation allow same-sex marriage (and openly discourage it) proves that these organisations are homophobic.(http://www.dagen.se/imam-islam-förbjuder-samkönade-äktenskap-1.189965) Regarding the members of those organisations, they all show homophobic tendencies. In the same way as someone who is a part of a organisation who does not allow racemixing shows racist tendencies. Those who are a part of such organisations is indeed moral blame worthy.

 

 

First off, I’ll cite the report:

 

''The religious affiliation is relatively important for the attitude towards homosexuals. The students who entered the Muslim religion has a much greater intolerance towards homosexuals than other categories.'' (p.50).

 

Secondly, you should consider the questions in this survery. If the questions ’’Do you support same-sex marriage’’, ’’Do you support samesex relationships’’ were added into it, you would expect the intolerance to rise, since the answer ''No'' to those questions is intolerant. While I respect both racists and homophobes, I condemn those thoughts as imoral.

 

 

Because here is the deal: Anyone who claims that samesex relationships or samesex marriage is not morally permissible - regardless if they do it because of religious beleifs or secular - is homophobic. The statement itself is on moral grounds fully comparable with saying no to racemixing. This is exactly why, for example, two christians in the city where I live was charged for claiming that homosexuality is a sin in public.

 

The problem is, that the state isn't going enough to battle Islam. In my opinion all islamic organisations who do not allow samesex marriage should not be allowed to get fundings from the state. I also believe there should be more money spent on displaying tolerance among muslims in Sweden on national TV. It has been done, many times, but it is not enough. This is after all a battle against one of the biggest threats against my country.

 

Faith is no excuse for bigotry and intolerance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

how come that NO ISLAMIC ORGANISATION in Sweden ever has been involved in LGBT rights? How come that they don't even want to be involved?

They're not obligated to.

 

 

 

First, it is the same thing. It's in both cases a negotiation in belief of an object/entity. (a disbelief).

 

Secondly, being an atheist does not imply lack of morality since morality does not come from religion. On the other hand, the morality professed in both the Bible and the Quaran is man-made, directly copied and partly changed from other philosophical systemsand ideas.

The ten commandments is a great example of moral codes that existed long before christianity adopted them.

 

It doesn't matter where morality has come from, because you can be an atheist and be an utter c*nt without morals and vice versa. If you're a decent human being that has been educated to the basic standards and raised properly, with no mental issues, you'll have morals. I can't say the same for some people here because it clearly shows you're lacking in one of, or all of the departments that I've posted. And although morality doesn't strictly come from religion alone, you should see how much morals are in Islam, but too bad you can't read it or understand it to save your life and being blinded by fear and delusion. Secondly, you can't prove the Qur'an being man-made because the writing in the Qur'an was technically spoken and then sent down by Allah and then written down in it's exact language by prophets, according to the religion, which you really should have no business debating about considering it's a belief in the first place. Thirdly, even scientists can't and never will be able to prove that the Qur'an was all an idea created by man because there is no evidence in existence which suggests this. Even using logic and common sense, it's impossible to find out if the religion was man made.

 

 

First;

 

i) The Quran is full off imoral and directly dangerous ideas deriving from the savages who wrote it.

 

ii) I have read the Quran and in terms of progression of morality, science and politics, there is no need for it.

 

Secondly;

The whole idea that an illiterate salesman communicated with God – that Gods words was written down perfectly and answered all moral, political and private questions – stands and falls on the the fact that the burden on proof is on the one making such a claim. In the case of Quran there is not a single shred of evidence to support this story. The fact that scientists can't disprove the Quran makes the claim that it is Gods words on papper pretty worthless.

 

Edited by Cyper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Nice job of ignoring the fact you can't perform basic mathematics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyName'sJeff

@Cyper: Did you read what I said? The Qur'an and the religion suggests NOTHING to the Muslims to be homophobic in any shape or form in the first place, so there is nothing to be homophobic about. The religion says its a sin, because Muslims are not supposed to be homophobic in the religion, so I don't know what's the problem here. Secondly, I'm starting to believe you haven't been educated or you haven't been raised properly. Just because people don't support gay marriage or homosexuality doesn't mean they are homophobic, that just means they don't give a sh*t whatever you are, that's completely the opposite. Go upto an atheist and ask him, do you support gay marriage or homosexuality overall? If the person says no, and says he doesn't give a sh*t, how the hell is that being homophobic? Science alone will sh*t on you just for thinking that. I genuinely think you're the type of person who is heterophobic because you seem to be one of those loyal extreme LGBT activists who want the whole world to be gay.

Edited by MyName'sJeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

Nice job of ignoring the fact you can't perform basic mathematics.

 

You claimed that the report suggests that 'muslims are 'tolerant and not homophobic'.

 

Your interpretation of the number is very different from the report, who sumarize it as follows on page 50:

 

''The religious affiliation is relatively important for the attitude towards homosexuals. The students who entered the Muslim religion has a much greater intolerance towards homosexuals than other categories.''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyName'sJeff

Where are the statistics then? You didn't post it, therefore it's bullsh*t. Until then, I'm going to class you has a heterophobic and a backwards thinking individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

You claimed that the report suggests that 'muslims are 'tolerant and not homophobic'.

 

Your interpretation of the number is very different from the report, who sumarize it as follows on page 50:

 

''The religious affiliation is relatively important for the attitude towards homosexuals. The students who entered the Muslim religion has a much greater intolerance towards homosexuals than other categories.''

You seem to struggle with semantics. And basic reading comprehension.

 

The claim I was disputing was:

 

 

Third, statistics that demostrate what I say: the majority of muslims are homophobic.

The statistics actually state the exact opposite- that a clear majority of Muslims are tolerant of homosexuality.

 

My "interpretation" (which isn't actually an interpretation, but empirical fact as is lacks any subjectivity- it is simple mathematics) does not differ from that you've quoted because the quote you've provided doesn't actually claim a majority of Muslims are intolerant of homosexuality. What it says, according to your translation is (emphasis mine):

 

 

''The religious affiliation is relatively important for the attitude towards homosexuals. The students who entered the Muslim religion has a much greater intolerance towards homosexuals than other categories

Which I don't fundamentally disagree with. In fact, I commented on this (again, emphasis mine)

 

 

So no, the statistics actually demonstrate that a majority of Muslims are tolerant of homosexualty; admittedly a smaller majority than other religious groups but a majority nonetheless.

I also said, and the statistics show:

 

 

..a stronger correlation between students of Individual Program and homophobia than there is Muslims [and homophobia].

So, whilst there's certainly a higher instance of intolerance amongst Muslims than there are other religious groups sampled, there are other samples in the same survey that show higher levels of intolerance towards homosexuality than Muslims do. So your suggestion that this was an issue explicitly linked with Islam is clearly false, given that apparently being an Individual Program student is a far more significant correlation in homophobia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

@Cyper: Did you read what I said? The Qur'an and the religion suggests NOTHING to the Muslims to be homophobic in any shape or form in the first place, so there is nothing to be homophobic about. The religion says its a sin, because Muslims are not supposed to be homophobic in the religion, so I don't know what's the problem here. Secondly, I'm starting to believe you haven't been educated or you haven't been raised properly. Just because people don't support gay marriage or homosexuality doesn't mean they are homophobic, that just means they don't give a sh*t whatever you are, that's completely the opposite. Go upto an atheist and ask him, do you support gay marriage or homosexuality overall? If the person says no, and says he doesn't give a sh*t, how the hell is that being homophobic? Science alone will sh*t on you just for thinking that. I genuinely think you're the type of person who is heterophobic because you seem to be one of those loyal extreme LGBT activists who want the whole world to be gay.

 

The Quran suggest that marraige is between a man and a women and that homosexuality is a sin, e.i that those who do such ’acts’ enter hell, which is the sick idea of a form of religion concentration camp where people are tortured for eternity. Used to frighten and silence children and adults who goes against Gods law.

 

I have been raised to believe in humans rights. I am for equality of man, equality of women, equality of gays – and I consider Islam and religion in general to be a threat and distraction. If you don’t support marriage equality – then you’re morally as bad as someone who does not support marriage between black and white people. Someone who believe that is acting morally reprehensible. I do not care where your morals come from – if they clash with the human rights, or the endeavor for equality, I will figuratively speaking do what I can to destroy you.

 

If wish there was more studies put into what muslims in Sweden think about samesex marriage. Because if there was, such research would make it possible to corner in and destroy anyone who is against it. Because these people do not belong in Sweden in the first place they belong in the history books.

Edited by Cyper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I hate to point this out yet again, but the same is true of large numbers of Catholics and Protestants. The central church of Catholicism sees homosexual marriage as abhorrent too.

It's also worth pointing out that there are periods of Islamic history where homosexuality has been prevalent and societally tolerated, notably in the Iberian caliphate after the conquest of modern-day Spain. There's an entire sect of Islam- Sufism- which exhibits an attitude entirely tolerant of homosexuality due to its emphasis on spirituality, affection and humanism over scriptural dogma.

 

Interestingly, the Koran is far less explicit in its condemnation of homosexuality than books of the Christian bible. I think there's only specific mention of it twice, neither time, contrary to popular belief, actually supports the idea of executing homosexuals, and unlike in the bible there's no specific mention of the committing of homosexual acts being punishable in any way. To quote the first translation I've been able to find (http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=4&verse=15&to=16):

 

(4:15) "As for those of your women who are guilty of immoral conduct, call upon four from amongst you to bear witness against them. And if four men do bear witness, confine those women to their houses until either death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them."

(4:16) "Punish both of those among you who are guilty of this sin, then if they repent and mend their ways, leave them alone. For Allah is always ready to accept repentance. He is All-Compassionate"

 

See, no talk of execution, no specifics of punishment- scripturally it's a far cry from either Judaism or Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

 

You claimed that the report suggests that 'muslims are 'tolerant and not homophobic'.

 

Your interpretation of the number is very different from the report, who sumarize it as follows on page 50:

 

''The religious affiliation is relatively important for the attitude towards homosexuals. The students who entered the Muslim religion has a much greater intolerance towards homosexuals than other categories.''

You seem to struggle with semantics. And basic reading comprehension.

 

The claim I was disputing was:

 

Third, statistics that demostrate what I say: the majority of muslims are homophobic.

The statistics actually state the exact opposite- that a clear majority of Muslims are tolerant of homosexuality.

 

My "interpretation" (which isn't actually an interpretation, but empirical fact as is lacks any subjectivity- it is simple mathematics) does not differ from that you've quoted because the quote you've provided doesn't actually claim a majority of Muslims are intolerant of homosexuality. What it says, according to your translation is (emphasis mine):

 

''The religious affiliation is relatively important for the attitude towards homosexuals. The students who entered the Muslim religion has a much greater intolerance towards homosexuals than other categories

Which I don't fundamentally disagree with. In fact, I commented on this (again, emphasis mine)

 

So no, the statistics actually demonstrate that a majority of Muslims are tolerant of homosexualty; admittedly a smaller majority than other religious groups but a majority nonetheless.

I also said, and the statistics show:

 

..a stronger correlation between students of Individual Program and homophobia than there is Muslims [and homophobia].

So, whilst there's certainly a higher instance of intolerance amongst Muslims than there are other religious groups sampled, there are other samples in the same survey that show higher levels of intolerance towards homosexuality than Muslims do. So your suggestion that this was an issue explicitly linked with Islam is clearly false, given that apparently being an Individual Program student is a far more significant correlation in homophobia.

 

 

Yeah, you were disuputing the claim that the majority of muslims are homophobic, which the statistics did not directly say, but which I claimed and so forth and so forth. Sorry, I have been sleeping for five hours and studied for 8 hours, I got headache, and I'm very stressed and irretated and it took me very long to respond in the first place.

 

Just a question: If homophobia was defined as being against samesex marriage or sexual intercourse between people of the same sex, how any percent off all muslims in Sweden (or the world) do you think would be considered as homophobic? Do you think it would be less than 50 percent? Take note that it does not neccessary mean that you want to punish gay people, or that you want to infringe their rights, it is sufficient that you hold the view.

Edited by Cyper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

If a cat was defined as a dog, would it still be a cat?

 

The answer is I don't know. I'm not Swedish, I don't know the demographics of support for same-sex marriage...to be honest I don't even know how you're defining "marriage" in this context. Lots of religious individuals of all persuasion support the notion of homosexual marriage as an act of union recognised by government, but don't support homosexual marriage as an act of union carried out by a religious authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

If a cat was defined as a dog, would it still be a cat?

 

You are not willing to answer the question, with other words.

 

Sorry, but I expected more from you.

Edited by Cyper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I have answered the question; I was making light of the idea of defining one thing as something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

I have answered the question; I was making light of the idea of defining one thing as something else.

 

I am aware you did; and I did not understand how you came to that conclusion.

 

Today there is wide acceptance for samesex marraige in Sweden. Take note though, that when samesex marriage was legislated in Sweden the majority of people was against it. It was the same with samesex adoption - the majority was against it once it was legislated. Hence, I agree with this act, since I believe that the government have responsibility to care for equal rights for all citizens and that it therefore was justifiable to go against the will of the public. It was not even a public issue - because it does not effect the public in any real sense.

 

I regard anyone who is against samesex marriage homophobic - regardless. To me it is comparable to being against marriage between black and white people. In the first case, the intolerance is based on sexuality, in the second the color of your skin. I do not care for which - it is intolerance regardless, and the first fits the definition for racism and the second homophobia. Fortunately, some politicians agree with me, since those who do not support samesex marraige often gets shunned.

 

From that follows, that I consider the muslim community in Sweden as a threat. While can't prove this with number - I am certain to say that the majority of muslims falls into the category of homophobia taken the definition I just gave you. If that is true, I look at the muslim community in a similar way at how I look at racists. While I do think that muslims are allowed to be homophobic, those who are should not get funds from the state.

Edited by Cyper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flesh-n-Bone

Only if they want funding from the state. Both are beliefs in one single question - the existance of something.

 

Then, of course, they are free to believe what they want. In the same way as racists are free to believe white people are superiour over black people. My point is simply that racism ought to be destroyed as well as racism since they are on a moral point of view equally bad. Any democratic state has a responsibility against it citizens to destroy both racism and homophobia. Muslims are unfortunately posioning the wells of my society.

What?

 

Anyways, you're just making a bunch of baseless assumptions with nothing to back it up.

 

P.S. it's humorous that you're complaining about intolerance when you are guilty of the same thing TENFOLDS.

Edited by Flesh-n-Bone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

I hate to point this out yet again, but the same is true of large numbers of Catholics and Protestants. The central church of Catholicism sees homosexual marriage as abhorrent too.

It's also worth pointing out that there are periods of Islamic history where homosexuality has been prevalent and societally tolerated, notably in the Iberian caliphate after the conquest of modern-day Spain. There's an entire sect of Islam- Sufism- which exhibits an attitude entirely tolerant of homosexuality due to its emphasis on spirituality, affection and humanism over scriptural dogma.

 

Interestingly, the Koran is far less explicit in its condemnation of homosexuality than books of the Christian bible. I think there's only specific mention of it twice, neither time, contrary to popular belief, actually supports the idea of executing homosexuals, and unlike in the bible there's no specific mention of the committing of homosexual acts being punishable in any way. To quote the first translation I've been able to find (http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=4&verse=15&to=16):

 

(4:15) "As for those of your women who are guilty of immoral conduct, call upon four from amongst you to bear witness against them. And if four men do bear witness, confine those women to their houses until either death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them."

(4:16) "Punish both of those among you who are guilty of this sin, then if they repent and mend their ways, leave them alone. For Allah is always ready to accept repentance. He is All-Compassionate"

 

See, no talk of execution, no specifics of punishment- scripturally it's a far cry from either Judaism or Christianity.

Your quoting of two verses to argue that Islam is more friendly towards homosexuals and adultery than Christianity and Judaism is pretty shallow. All three religions explicity condemn adultery and homosexuality, and spell out the punishment of death... Old testament Bible specifically, I don't recall the new testament having anything about killing homosexuals or adulterers. Nevertheless, there are various hadiths as well as Quranic verses that explicity condemn homosexuality and sodomy, and call for death sentences. I see you call people out all the time for not properly researching and it seems to me you're quite guilty of that here. Have you ever read the Quran or studied Islam formally?

 

 

Quran 7:80, 7:81, and 7:84 explicitly condemn homosexuality, the first of which calls for it to be punished via a "shower of brimstone"

 

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/007-qmt.php#007.080

 

 

A few hadiths on homosexuality, the first of which directly quotes the Prophet -

 

al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 - [Muhammad said] "Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver."

 

 

Abu Dawud (4462) - The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.".

 

 

 

As for adultery, there are verses that explicitly condemn it which are sound verses, or Mukhamat, which explicity state that adultery will be punished via stoning. However, as you put above the corresponding Mutashabihat states that 4 witnesses must have seen the act to condemn it with stoning. This, according to a lot of scholars on Islam, is proof that Allah is merciful and makes the burden of proof so high that adulterers will be forgiven. We've seen contradictions to this in various hadith though, such as Muslim 17:4206, which is the hadith I posted in my post below wherein Mohammed had an adulterous woman carry the baby to term then killed both of them (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Stoning#Sahih_Muslim)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jeff, not sure if you missed my post on the last page but I'm interested to see your response to what I posted. Here it is again below.

 

Have you ever read the Quran or a single hadith because you're the one espousing ignorance my friend. I know how the Quran is to be read. I know that each verse follows another and the one below it and all of them are to be taken in context. That said, I also know that extremist groups focus purely on Mukhamat and ignore the corresponding Mutashabihat.. i.e. adultery requiring 4 witnesses to have seen the act before it can be punished with stoning, the stoning being the Mukhamat and the 4 witnesses being the Mutashabihat. But again man, the Mukhamat is still there in writing for stoning a woman who commits adultery. Muslims view the Quran as Christians view Christ - the direct and unquestioned word of God. Your knowledge of Islam seems to be a bit shallow if you can't even fathom the fact that Sunni Islam itself has 4 widely divided interpretations on various teachings (and that doesn't include Salafism)... as a quick aside, one hadith from the Prophet himself taught that he punished an adulterous woman by making her carry the baby to term for 9 months, then murdering both of them. The idea that there's absolutely no violence within Islam at all is simple sugar coating.

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I am aware you did; and I did not understand how you came to that conclusion.

How I came to what conclusion? The main point I was making is that it depends how you categorise "marriage" in this concept. Are we talking acceptance of civil union or acceptance of their religious authorities marrying homosexuals? They're both same-sex marriage.

 

Irv, I never claimed that Islam didn't condemn homosexuality. I stated that the Koran is much less explicit in its condemnation and the punishments for it than other major Abrahamic holy books. That the Koran doesn't call for the execution of homosexuals is inarguable; it doesn't. Hadiths are a different story but I never actually claimed Islam itself, or any other associated holy works, were more accepting of homosexuality, or that it was accepting at all, and aside from misreading what I've posted I'm not sure how you could think I was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.