They don't hate us, they love their God

Thanks.

So if I am anti the belief system of Islam, and therefore prejudiced against those who believe in it - and so anti Muslim, am I a racist?

The problem it seems to me is that the word Muslim is taken by Muslims as meaning a distinct identity as if it was racial, which it most certainly is not.

I went to an exhibition at the British Library yesterday entitled "Sacred". a comparison of Christianity Judaism and Islam. Or rather it was a propaganda exercise in trying to emphasise their commonality and minimise their differences. I came away re convinced in my opinion that they are collectively rubbish. And I'm sorry if that offends anyone.

Steve - A little research into Islam will show a gre deal of racism aimed inwardly. Muslims who are not of arab decent are often treated as secondhand believers or just simply as being "less than." Look at the phillipines etc. I agree with you about muslims take "muslim" to mean a distinct identity. Further, I see it as them often treating it as race by some tribal philosophy.

As for scientology. Let's remember, it's not a religion it's an "alternative to phychology." Seriously...

T
K
O

IFF is a gentleman and a Scholar.

I hope I'm a gentleman but I know I'm not a scholar.

Other folks here are scholars, but certainly not gentlemen

Thanks, eltejano. Your complementary remarks are much appreciated (especially after the scathing criticism I've received from some!). You are most definitely a gentleman, and particularly knowledgeable and well-spoken for someone who make no claims to be a scholar.

I just hope that poor little pooch in the photo there doesn't have an accident in the house!

Now, that's obvious!

You flatter me, you are a gentleman. You don't, you are not a gentleman.

Isn't it puerile, for knowledgeable people?

I don't think anyone expects flattery, Francis, but common civility isn't too much to ask. I have always been under the impression that the whole point of any dialogue is to persuade the other fellow that he is wrong and you are right. Insulting people doesn't seem to be conducive to that end.

Jack

Having no desire to persuade the other fellows, I just pointed out how obvious it was...

Now, the definition of "insulting" is a completely different matter...

Yes, indeed. But isn't it "insulting", by any definition of the word, to tell someone that his ideas are "idiotic drivel" or is that just being brutally frank, Frank.

Jack

We are not at kindergarten. Adults should be able to distinguish between personal insult and a reasoned attack on a set of ideas, even if strong language is used.

Yah - they sure should.

I was thinking of an anology between a man's work, and his words. Now if someone came and looked at my days work (unless, orf course the person was my lawful superior)and said "Well, your approach is ill-conceived and awkward, your method is backwards and stupid, your results are malformed and ridiculous, but I mean you no insult", isn't that the same thing as saying "Your words are silly stupid childish drivel, and your conclusions are delusional"?
I'd think in the first case, the person is clearly being insulting - who would not take those kind of comments about his work with impersonal nonchalance? What then makes the same approach to a person's words different?

Not if you asked for the guy's opinion, Snood. And that is precisely what we do here; we put our ideas out in little lines of type and any member is free to read and criticize them. Do some use harsher terms to describe their opinion? Sure, welcome to the world of adults.

If someone calls one of my highly thoughtful ideas idiotic, I try to examine his thinking (Maybe I find him to completely wacko, maybe I look and say "crap, he's right.) but I don't take any of it personally. I try to show how my wonderfully odd idea contains rational thought and defy my critic to show otherwise.
Make a claim, back it up with facts.
Make a claim, back it up with logic.

Joe(Stand back and see if your sand castle can withstand the tide of examination.)Nation

Well, it seems pretty difficult to do for some posters.

I'm always amazed how they make their arguments elastic to fit their beliefs...

Well, I am guilty of being as insulting when I'm in the politics forum - but it is being insulting though. I think to try to dress it up as some sort of stern scholarly correction is disingenuous.

I'd say, don't hold your breath waiting for that. In both religion and politics, but especially in religion, there is an underlying assumption that courtesy consists in not mentioning that one has smelled bullshit, because that might give offense to the manure spreader. It seems that it is entirely impossible for the ideologically or religiously devout to distinguish between criticism of what they believe and personal attack.

Personally, i long ago ceased to care if some joker takes offense when i tell him his imaginary friend superstition is a crock.

So Snood . . . if you spent your day attempting to make silk purses from sow's ears, and someone came along to criticize that, would you feel justified in taking personal offense to that?

The ideas i attack are ideas which are presented as truth, but for which no evidence is adduced. If IFF wants to believe that he has some wonderful cosmic experience when he meditates, that's fine, and he'll hear nothing from me on the subject. However, when he alleges that his experience is evidence that there is a "spiritual dimension" (his term, not mine), then i have every right to point out that there is no good reason to believe as much. When he attempts to say that we should believe him because he personally knows what the experience means, but he can't demonstrate it with empirical evidence--it is proper to say that he indulges special pleading. When he comes back with a claim that many people have had the same experience, it is proper to point out that that is the fallacy of argumentum ad numerum. When he says that if you don't understand, you are clearly not enlightened, he is employing the fallacy of argumentum ad populum in its narrower, elitist sense. It is perfectly reasonable to point these things out. (All of these are arguments he has made recently and repeatedly.)

When someone puts out an argument, and it gets shot down on the basis of logical objections, when it is shot down because it relies upon logical fallacies--but the individual persists in presenting the same lame-brained argument again and again, then they continually erode any claim they have to a deferential response. If someone approached you on the street, and told you your shoe were untied, and you were wearing slip-on loafers, you might respond, courteously, that your shoes are not untied, that they cannot be "untied" because they cannot be tied. If the individual persisted, you might understandably eventually lose patience with them, and abandon courtesy.

I have never said that IFF is an idiot. I will not, however, desist from saying that he continually offers an idiotic proposition, for which he provides no support other than appeals to special pleading and logical fallacies. If he considers that "scathing" comments, perhaps he should consider a new script for his dog and pony show.

The same goes for anyone who tries to fob off their imaginary friend superstition on me using the Bobble as an authority. And to say, as you have in the past (and i acknowledge that you have not made the argument recently) that adherence to any particular religious superstition ought to get a pass because it is "faith-based" is the worst sort of special pleading, particularly in a venue to which people resort to discuss such matters.

Or did you think that the S & R forum ought to be reserved for those who wish to preach to their respective chosen choirs?

Morning, Joe, Mornin' Snood

Joe, there's really no excuse for talking to people that way - at least when they have not been rude to you. You can't defend it, my man! I'll bet you dollars for donuts that he doesn't do it in his real life! - he wouldn't be able hold a job or retain employees, and live with a permanent fat lip!

He's just plain, old-fashioned rude here on the forum. In real life he's probably a nice guy. My guess that he's in a high-stress job, confined by protocol, his wife would slap him down if he talked to her like that, so he dumps on a pleasant, tranquil, well-meaning man like IFF! He's probably a Jekyl and Hyde. Or, maybe he just has hemorroids that hurt when he sits at the computer.

That's the big downside with the web - anonymity breeds irresponsibility. There would be consequences if he snarled that sort of diatribe at his next door neighbor. Here, if the going gets rough, you just delete the site from your favorites list. In real life, you have to move!

Y'all been getting some big gully-washers over there, Snood? Woodville's about to wash into Dam B!

Jack

Yeah, it's been wet. About the "ruder than in real life" deal, I think there's something to that. I've heard Set is a big ole teddy bear in real life.

Hey Set - I hear ya about the "silk purses out of sow's ears" thing. The thing is, I just think that to tell someone their words are puerile, idiotic and backwards, and then tell them its not an insult to them, is just not honest.

whited sepulchers full of rotting flesh and dead men's bones . . .

You're hilarious, ET; pissin' and moanin' and whinin' about how "rude" i am, so you thought you'd just pop in to make some personal comments. In fact, in real life, if you approached me with your imaginary friend superstition, you'd get one polite response that i didn't intend to discuss it with you, and if you persisted, i'd tell you it is an imaginary friend superstition, a dog and pony show, and to get out of my face. I've had more than one fat lip in my life, and as the song says: . . . ain't scared of bloody nose.

In fact, you have demonstrated that you have completely failed to understand the distinction here. I have never once commented on what i consider your personal circumstances to be, nor those of IFF. When you peddle horsie poop (do you like that better than horseshit?) about history, and i suggest that you don't know much about history, it is because you have provided evidence that you don't know much about history. When IFF peddles the same arguments over and over again, i point out the logical fallacies over and over again, and refer to it as a dog and pony show.

I have never speculated on the details of your personal life, nor that of IFF. Frankly, i can think of few subjects which would interest me less. But you, stalwart christian gentleman that you are, when confronted with the prospect of having your imaginary friend superstition laughed to ridicule, resort to insulting speculations on the nature of my personal life.

The quote at the beginning of this post is actually Christopher Marlowe's version of a biblical verse. Here is the original in the King James version--and it occurred to me when is saw ET making snide and insulting speculations about my personal life, despite the fact that i've never once speculated on his character or his personal life:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Matthew, Chapter 23, verse 27.

Theodore Roosevelt was one of the most effective leaders the United States ever had. He also claimed that Margaret Sanger was a "race traitor" for promoting birth control among white women. That was a puerile, idiotic, backward comment for him to have made. That doesn't alter that he graduated Harvard University (and unlike the current president, did so by his hard work, rather than because Pappy was writing big checks to the Alumni fund), that he was a well-respected historian, was a competent naturalist in the terms of his day, and that he served with distinction in combat in 1898 (although i question whether he deserved the Medal of Honor). So it is possible to acknowledge someone's worth and still tell them that they've said a stupid thing if you happen to hear them say a stupid thing.

It is hardly a problem of mine if you take personal offense to being told you've said a stupid thing on those occasions upon which you say stupid things. I don't recall anyone pulling punches with me in that manner.