Tip of The Iceberg - The Beginning Of The End For Britain ?
Discussion
allnighter said:
There are around 1.6 billion Muslims in the world happy going about their daily business and practicing their religion in total peace without bothering anyone.There is a minority however just like in any religious/ non religious group who are hell bent on creating all sorts of conflicts in an agressive manner using their own interpretation of Islam( or any other religion) to brain wash the gullible and the stupid.
That's very simplistic. Whilst we haven't got 1.6bn Muslims all warring and blowing themselves up, equally we haven't got 1.6bn Muslims happily going about their business in total peace. I'm not really sure what that means, to be honest. War is only a small part of why I criticise Islam. Violence is not necessarily war, it's such things as hitting your wife, beating women convicted of adultery (talking to a male non-family-member), killing an apostate, lynching a blasphemer. Beyond violence of course we have the actionable intolerance of others (the ousting of Christians, persecution of Jews, etc.), the treatment of children, the general oppression of society, the devaluation of education and the retardation of science and innovation.allnighter said:
I am the first one to say that faith cannot be defined in a rational manner.It might give comfort to some, or a sense of belonging or whatever but if it makes them happy to be a religious devotee so be it.Each and everyone is free to practice whatever religion they choose, and see in its interpretation whatever they want.Taking Islam and the Koran as an example, yes there are verses which ,to the untrained eye, seem to incite martyrdom and violence against the 'infidels'.If you take these verses out their historical context they form a powerful tool or a 'Haynes manual' (to borrow Carmonk's expression) to commit atrocities against any infidel or non-Muslim.
What is the 'untrained eye'? I hope you don't subscribe to the canard that 'scholars' are better placed to evaluate the Koran than anybody else. This concept of 'context' is not valid. There is nothing in the Koran that assigns genuine context, not one single verse to the best of my knowledge. Neither is there anything in the hadith that allows for the evolution of the message through time. Those instructions are often as clear as day and this 'context' is something added after the fact by more moderate scholars in order to try and mitigate the truly debased instructions the scriptures contain. In that respect it's much like the Bible apart from Christianity allows for far greater weaseling through the NT / OT relationship and the crucifiction of Jesus.allnighter said:
Having done my own research on the subject and having discussed the matter with many Muslims, it seems that the Koran is not a strict Haynes manual on how to conduct your life as a Muslim, but an illustration on how to be a model just like Muhammed was for all Muslims to follow as a good example.
Do you think Mohammad is a good example for Muslims to follow today? Which traits do you think contemporary Muslims should try to emulate?allnighter said:
The Koran is also a set of 'devine solutions' destined to the prophet to deal with issues at the time which should be interpreted in its context 1400 years ago (examples: How to deal with religious persecution coming from Koreish the tribe which attacked Muhammed and his followers, and how to fight them and not turn the other cheek etc...)These verses are meant to be interpreted as an example on self-preservation in case of 'religious persecution' and on the fact that the strength of faith cannot be weakened by a stronger and a more powerful adversary.They are not a green light to any Muslim to strap a bomb around their waist and march into a crowded market full of westerners and kill as many as he can.I think a bit of common sense and a good knowledge of history can help people understand their own religion without being told by religious fundamentalists on one hand, that they should die like martyrs in the name of Allah, or by atheist fundamentalists (and I know Carmonk hates this expression!) that their religion is violent by nature if they are of the non-violent variety then they are not true Muslims.
I have no doubt this is what you've been told, I've been told the same thing by Muslims, but let me ask you something. If you were to go and read the Koran and the hadith, would you come away from that with the same viewpoint - that the verses should be taken in context? If so, where are the instructions to take the information in context, and where are the descriptions of the nature of that context? Because I'm willing to be corrected but I can't think of a single instance of this context actually existing. If it does then it applies to a tiny fraction of Islamic instruction.allnighter said:
Don't get me wrong, Islam needs modernising,(here I agree with Carmonk when it comes to women's rights etc..) and there are provisions in Islam for that and adjusting to modern life through critical thinking and that's where the stagnation lies at the moment.Had critical thinking and progress been encouraged continueously since Islam was at its peak with science and medecine innovations centuries ago, we would have a different discussion altogether today.
So next time someone tells you my religion is peaceful because of XYZ don't try and tell them: No your religion is ABC or whatever.Faith is a personal thing and any holy Book only becomes a Haynes Manual if you are narrow minded and not open to more updates (provided updates are available of course and again that's where urgent work is needed indeed).
You're wrong about faith. You say "faith is a personal thing" when you should have said "faith should be a personal thing". The faith of Islam is anything but personal. You've done the research so are you seriously denying that Islam is a theology of conquest and conversion?So next time someone tells you my religion is peaceful because of XYZ don't try and tell them: No your religion is ABC or whatever.Faith is a personal thing and any holy Book only becomes a Haynes Manual if you are narrow minded and not open to more updates (provided updates are available of course and again that's where urgent work is needed indeed).
Individual interpretation is not a good yardstick by which to measure religion. I have no doubt you have met Muslims in the UK who do not advocate killing somebody if they leave Islam and speak out against it. That does not mean that Islam shares this view. It does not. There is no strand of Islam anywhere in the world that does not advocate severe penalties for this sort of apostasy, and that penalty is more often than not death. Taking this example; even in the UK, where attitudes to apostates are some of the most lenient in the world, 36% of young Muslims still support the death penalty (in fact, that applies to simple apostasy, not speaking out, so the figure for speaking out as well as converting away would likely be more). This is just one example of how you should not define a religion based on the experience of a handful of religious friends or blokes you chatted to on a forum. You are not likely to come into contact with those with more extreme beliefs and even if you did, they probably wouldn't share them with you.
Edited by carmonk on Friday 13th April 23:08
carmonk said:
He is an interesting personality. His FAQ is laughable, but I expect it was intended to read that way. I find it hard to listen to a comedian that is trying to make a serious point. At least he's not the serious false profit type, which would be worse.
So what is your personal view on where we are going?
My personal view is that at some time in the future, we will be involved in a war with Islam on one side and everybody else on the other.
LordFlathead said:
My personal view is that at some time in the future, we will be involved in a war with Islam on one side and everybody else on the other.
What do you mean in the future? The west is already involved in The Israel/Palestine conflict is a core driver for religious conflicts everywhere and a major recruiting flag for Islamic fundamentalists. Settler communities are very clear about their aim of driving every last Palestinian from their homes and consider themselves to be doing the work of god.
From an atheist standpoint it's hard to see much difference between jewish settlers and hamas. Religious nutcases with odious morals who want to do god/allah's work by wiping each other out.
Blair and Bush were both bible thumping christians who orchestrated the invasion of two large Muslim countries. Afghanistan is a direct mission to replace a government who they considered to be too Islamic. Iraq was as much about protecting Israel as it was about oil or Saddam Hussein.
Unfortunately most UK taxpayers seem to be unaware how much of their money is being spent on this crusade, or why islamic fundamentalists consider the UK and its economy to be a legitimate target of war.
Is he meant to be a comedian?
He's rehashing the "thin end of the wedge" argument, and no more convincingly than carmonk IMO.
He's rehashing the "thin end of the wedge" argument, and no more convincingly than carmonk IMO.
LordFlathead said:
My personal view is that at some time in the future, we will be involved in a war with Islam on one side and everybody else on the other.
The extremists would say we already are, but the vast majority on all sides disagree.LordFlathead said:
carmonk said:
He is an interesting personality. His FAQ is laughable, but I expect it was intended to read that way. I find it hard to listen to a comedian that is trying to make a serious point. At least he's not the serious false profit type, which would be worse.
So what is your personal view on where we are going?
My personal view is that at some time in the future, we will be involved in a war with Islam on one side and everybody else on the other.
Tartan Pixie said:
LordFlathead said:
My personal view is that at some time in the future, we will be involved in a war with Islam on one side and everybody else on the other.
What do you mean in the future? The west is already involved in Tartan Pixie said:
The Israel/Palestine conflict is a core driver for religious conflicts everywhere and a major recruiting flag for Islamic fundamentalists. Settler communities are very clear about their aim of driving every last Palestinian from their homes and consider themselves to be doing the work of god.
From an atheist standpoint it's hard to see much difference between jewish settlers and hamas. Religious nutcases with odious morals who want to do god/allah's work by wiping each other out.
Then again it's nothing to do with Islam itself. It's not a war on Islam, Isreal would seek to evict any non-Jew from their 'promised land'.From an atheist standpoint it's hard to see much difference between jewish settlers and hamas. Religious nutcases with odious morals who want to do god/allah's work by wiping each other out.
Tartan Pixie said:
Blair and Bush were both bible thumping christians who orchestrated the invasion of two large Muslim countries. Afghanistan is a direct mission to replace a government who they considered to be too Islamic. Iraq was as much about protecting Israel as it was about oil or Saddam Hussein.
By 'too Islamic' do you mean too terrorist-oriented? Again, nothing to do with Islam. The West hasn't yet woken up to the threat Islam faces, you only have to look at our domestic affairs to see that. But we will.Tartan Pixie said:
Unfortunately most UK taxpayers seem to be unaware how much of their money is being spent on this crusade, or why islamic fundamentalists consider the UK and its economy to be a legitimate target of war.
It's true that huge sums are spent, and also IMO most of it is wasted. There are better ways to protect the UK than to invade some desert toilet and try to civilise it. The last part of your sentence is also true but not in the way you think. You listen to some of these terrorists give their reason for their opposition to the West and you'll see most of it is not down to the West's military action, it's based upon Islamic theology. One terrorist laughed when he was asked if Western foreign policy was the cause of his actions. You only have to look at the hundreds of Islamic terrorist attacks around the world each year - most not against the West - to understand that this is the face of Islamic conquest and nothing else.
LordFlathead said:
He is an interesting personality. His FAQ is laughable, but I expect it was intended to read that way.
It is funny, not read that before. Though I am aware of Pat's videos.
Carmonk, I think you may have misinterpreted my previous post. I wasn't saying the west was waging war against islam, I was saying that there are strong jewish/christian forces who are waging war to reclaim the holy land. The tenants of zionism and the fundamentalist christian belief in the end of days and the second coming are killing just as many people as fundamentalist islam.
If you think homosexuals or women in miniskirts are in any way acceptable to these people, or that they adhere to basic values like not killing people in the name of religion then you are sadly mistaken.
Despite all this I'm quite welcoming of both jews and christians in the UK because the majority of them are perfectly decent people. At no point would I attempt to equate someone with nutcase settlers just because they are jewish. In essence what I am saying is that if you have a problem with islam then you must also either have a problem with judaism/christianity or be a hypocrite, it's one or the other.
Earlier in this thread you were accused of being a nutter wanting to impose his values on the rest of the UK. Would I be right in saying that these values are the ones enshrined in British common law and the entity designated to enforce them is the police?
Assuming this is the case then I would agree with you that these values are worth defending, as such any action taken to defend democracy and the freedoms within it must be defined by the UK and carried out by proving charges in a court of law. The alternative is blanket demonisation of an entire group in society and its only effect will be to create more hatred.
Take for example this article in that pinko leftie organ known as the independent. What I see in that article is an actual threat to democracy and that the people getting pissed off with it are liberals and moderate muslims, indeed I don't think Cameron has even mentioned the subject of electoral fraud.
What some see as weakness of liberalism for not standing up to islam I see as strength for sticking to the rule of law and treating people as individuals. Only through these ideals can you defeat totalitarianism, otherwise you become as bad as those you seek to defend yourself from.
If you think homosexuals or women in miniskirts are in any way acceptable to these people, or that they adhere to basic values like not killing people in the name of religion then you are sadly mistaken.
Carmonk said:
Then again it's nothing to do with Islam itself. It's not a war on Islam, Isreal would seek to evict any non-Jew from their 'promised land'.
Yes that's exactly what I saw happening in the West Bank. They can't do the large scale massacres any more because their American and German backers would stop funding them. Instead it's a slow drip of ethnic cleansing through restricting jobs, food and movement (punctuated with a bit of killing people). If this is what judaism/christianity looks like then it has no place in Britain or anywhere else.Despite all this I'm quite welcoming of both jews and christians in the UK because the majority of them are perfectly decent people. At no point would I attempt to equate someone with nutcase settlers just because they are jewish. In essence what I am saying is that if you have a problem with islam then you must also either have a problem with judaism/christianity or be a hypocrite, it's one or the other.
Earlier in this thread you were accused of being a nutter wanting to impose his values on the rest of the UK. Would I be right in saying that these values are the ones enshrined in British common law and the entity designated to enforce them is the police?
Assuming this is the case then I would agree with you that these values are worth defending, as such any action taken to defend democracy and the freedoms within it must be defined by the UK and carried out by proving charges in a court of law. The alternative is blanket demonisation of an entire group in society and its only effect will be to create more hatred.
Take for example this article in that pinko leftie organ known as the independent. What I see in that article is an actual threat to democracy and that the people getting pissed off with it are liberals and moderate muslims, indeed I don't think Cameron has even mentioned the subject of electoral fraud.
What some see as weakness of liberalism for not standing up to islam I see as strength for sticking to the rule of law and treating people as individuals. Only through these ideals can you defeat totalitarianism, otherwise you become as bad as those you seek to defend yourself from.
Edited by Tartan Pixie on Monday 16th April 23:00
Tartan Pixie said:
Carmonk, I think you may have misinterpreted my previous post. I wasn't saying the west was waging war against islam, I was saying that there are strong jewish/christian forces who are waging war to reclaim the holy land. The tenants of zionism and the fundamentalist christian belief in the end of days and the second coming are killing just as many people as fundamentalist islam.
If you think homosexuals or women in miniskirts are in any way acceptable to these people, or that they adhere to basic values like not killing people in the name of religion then you are sadly mistaken.
That's true to an extent but if you're talking globally, or specifically within the UK (as opposed to specific situations such as Isreal), then contemporarily the death toll and intolerance of even Judaism pales into insignificance compared to that of Islam.If you think homosexuals or women in miniskirts are in any way acceptable to these people, or that they adhere to basic values like not killing people in the name of religion then you are sadly mistaken.
Tartan Pixie said:
Carmonk said:
Then again it's nothing to do with Islam itself. It's not a war on Islam, Isreal would seek to evict any non-Jew from their 'promised land'.
Yes that's exactly what I saw happening in the West Bank. They can't do the large scale massacres any more because their American and German backers would stop funding them. Instead it's a slow drip of ethnic cleansing through restricting jobs, food and movement (punctuated with a bit of killing people). If this is what judaism/christianity looks like then it has no place in Britain or anywhere else.Despite all this I'm quite welcoming of both jews and christians in the UK because the majority of them are perfectly decent people. At no point would I attempt to equate someone with nutcase settlers just because they are jewish. In essence what I am saying is that if you have a problem with islam then you must also either have a problem with judaism or be a hypocrite, it's one or the other.
But you need to ask yourself, why is this thread not about Jews? Why is it not about Christians or Buddhists or Quakers? Why when you mention religious extremism do you immediately think of Islam? Check out the UK surveys and the reports then try to find equivalent evidence of extreme views amongst the Jews or the Quakers or the Atheists for that matter. We don't hear of Jews or Jehovah's Witnesses or Sikhs or Hindus marching in the street calling for the death of all and sundry. All the evidence points to Islam being the most rotten apple in the basket, from the core scriptures to its interpretation to the culture with which it's inextricably linked.
People say ah, but that's just Islamic extremism. Two things: Firstly, extremist interpretation is only possible because extremism exists in the core religion. That's why we don't see many other adherents to other religions blowing themselves up whilst chanting the name of their god. Secondly, the polls I posted show an alarmingly large support for extremism amongst what is called the moderate community. This fact has never once been addressed by anyone. Ignore it and it will go away. Except it won't.
Carmonk said:
Earlier in this thread you were accused of being a nutter wanting to impose his values on the rest of the UK. Would I be right in saying that these values are the ones enshrined in British common law and the entity designated to enforce them is the police?
The nutter comment & the 'manifesto' nonsense as I recall was made by a hysterical individual who later proved himself to be a racist, so I wouldn't read too much into it. What I actually said was when hard-won values such as equality and prohibition of incitement to hatred are applied equally across all society, without religion being given special dispensation, Islam will shrivel and die. Ditto for when the law is applied fairly and debate can take place without hysterical allegations and fascist suppression of free speech. There's no need for extra legislation or special police forces or anything like that.Carmonk said:
Assuming this is the case then I would agree with you that these values are worth defending, as such any action taken to defend democracy and the freedoms within it must be defined by the UK and carried out by proving charges in a court of law. The alternative is blanket demonisation of an entire group in society and its only effect will be to create more hatred.
Why would this happen? I take it you've no problem with the current set-up by whereby, for example, a White Power group would not be allowed to march through the streets with placards saying "Kill all Blacks". Neither would they be allowed to distribute leaflets instructing the death of homosexuals. Simple take away religion's special dispensation.Carmonk said:
Take for example this article in that pinko leftie organ known as the independent. What I see in that article is an actual threat to democracy and that the people getting pissed off with it are liberals and moderate muslims, indeed I don't think Cameron has even mentioned the subject of electoral fraud.
What some see as weakness in the left for not standing up to islam I see as strength for sticking to the rule of law and treating people as individuals. Only through these ideals can you defeat totalitarianism, otherwise you become as bad as those you seek to defend yourself from.
Sorry, but that makes me laugh, albeit bitterly. Firstly, your defence of Islam as relates to the rights of the individual. What about the individual Muslim woman who is subjugated and treated as property her whole life, considered a second-class citizen or forced to marry someone she's never met - where are her rights? The homosexual Muslim man who must keep his sexuality a secret; the Muslim man or woman who rejects Islam yet can't come out and say so for fear of ostracisation, violence or - in many Islamic countries - death; the rights of the child of a Muslim to choose their own belief system and not be brainwashed into believing nonsense, that Jews are pigs and non-believers are cursed and filthy, or even that the aforementioned groups should be mutilated and killed (I've posted evidence that both these happen in the UK). We could go on and on but please, resist the absurdity of defending Islam based on the rights of the individual.What some see as weakness in the left for not standing up to islam I see as strength for sticking to the rule of law and treating people as individuals. Only through these ideals can you defeat totalitarianism, otherwise you become as bad as those you seek to defend yourself from.
Secondly, Islam is not an individual religion, we're not talking Tibetan Buddhism here. Islam is an ideology of conquest and conversion after the example of the warlord Mohammad. There's nothing remotely individual about it and the evidence for this is clear. Does a religion based on individual choice mandate the death penalty for apostasy? I think not.
Much of the left's support of Islam is down to pure ignorance. That goes for some people on this thread too. A while back I was also of the opinion that Islam was just another religion and who was I to question someone's beliefs. I too was ignorant. Education on the subject opened my eyes and the more I learn about Islam, the more I find my views reinforced. I have been accused of taking note only of anti-Islamic material, and whilst it's true I indulge a fair amount, I'll bet I've read and listened to more Islamic material than half the Muslims on this site. Ironically, the pro-Islamic literature and lectures damn the religion the most.
Edited by carmonk on Tuesday 17th April 00:02
carmonk said:
But you need to ask yourself, why is this thread not about Jews? Why is it not about Christians or Buddhists or Quakers? Why when you mention religious extremism do you immediately think of Islam?
When someone mentions religious extremism I tend to think of nutters vs civilization. It's you that thinks immediately of islam, as if the fact you've read the koran means you know the inner thoughts of 1.6 billion or so people.Islam has a problem with extremism, we all know this and I don't think anyone in this thread has said otherwise. To demonstrate what I'm trying to say try this little though experiment:
Five muslims are sitting in a room. Four of them want to bomb London while the fifth is a really nice person who's invented a cure for cancer. You have two choices:
A) Send them all to Guantanamo Bay and never see them again.
B) Speak to each of them individually as human beings to try and find out who the nice one is, then treat each of them according to who they are rather than what religion they follow.
Through this thread you seem to be arguing for option A. I am saying that option B is a liberal British value that we've fought damn hard for and I'll keep fighting for those values regardless of whether it's Carmonk or Mohamed Al-Bomber who's threatening them.
Carmonk said:
Why would this happen? I take it you've no problem with the current set-up by whereby, for example, a White Power group would not be allowed to march through the streets with placards saying "Kill all Blacks". Neither would they be allowed to distribute leaflets instructing the death of homosexuals. Simple take away religion's special dispensation.
No, again you're making assumptions based on your perceived view of one group, in this case liberals. I do not think anyone is above the law, in fact I completely agree with you that hate speech should be treated equally regardless of who is inciting violence. No special dispensation to anyone, certainly not religious nutjobs.Carmonk said:
Firstly, your defence of Islam as relates to the rights of the individual.
Firstly, at no point did I defend or make excuses for islam. Secondly my respect for the rights of the individual are based on British values and have nothing to do with religion in any way. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.Tartan Pixie said:
carmonk said:
But you need to ask yourself, why is this thread not about Jews? Why is it not about Christians or Buddhists or Quakers? Why when you mention religious extremism do you immediately think of Islam?
When someone mentions religious extremism I tend to think of nutters vs civilization. It's you that thinks immediately of islam, as if the fact you've read the koran means you know the inner thoughts of 1.6 billion or so people.Tartan Pixie said:
Islam has a problem with extremism, we all know this and I don't think anyone in this thread has said otherwise. To demonstrate what I'm trying to say try this little though experiment:
Five muslims are sitting in a room. Four of them want to bomb London while the fifth is a really nice person who's invented a cure for cancer. You have two choices:
A) Send them all to Guantanamo Bay and never see them again.
B) Speak to each of them individually as human beings to try and find out who the nice one is, then treat each of them according to who they are rather than what religion they follow.
Through this thread you seem to be arguing for option A. I am saying that option B is a liberal British value that we've fought damn hard for and I'll keep fighting for those values regardless of whether it's Carmonk or Mohamed Al-Bomber who's threatening them.
No, because I've always made the distinction between Islam and Muslims when talking about the religion itself. So to answer your question my position is still option CFive muslims are sitting in a room. Four of them want to bomb London while the fifth is a really nice person who's invented a cure for cancer. You have two choices:
A) Send them all to Guantanamo Bay and never see them again.
B) Speak to each of them individually as human beings to try and find out who the nice one is, then treat each of them according to who they are rather than what religion they follow.
Through this thread you seem to be arguing for option A. I am saying that option B is a liberal British value that we've fought damn hard for and I'll keep fighting for those values regardless of whether it's Carmonk or Mohamed Al-Bomber who's threatening them.
C) Isolate the ideology that makes them think bombing London is a good idea, then nullify it.
That ideology is Islam. And whilst we're on the subject, this is where the arguments about Western failings fall down. The common rebuttal is Well, non-Muslim people in the UK kill / beat their wives / blow stuff up, and it's true, they do. But if we could isolate a single core reason that promotes such behaviour, would we tackle it and seek to remove it? You bet we would. So why should Islam, along with other religions, be given special dispensation?
Tartan Pixie said:
Carmonk said:
Why would this happen? I take it you've no problem with the current set-up by whereby, for example, a White Power group would not be allowed to march through the streets with placards saying "Kill all Blacks". Neither would they be allowed to distribute leaflets instructing the death of homosexuals. Simple take away religion's special dispensation.
No, again you're making assumptions based on your perceived view of one group, in this case liberals. I do not think anyone is above the law, in fact I completely agree with you that hate speech should be treated equally regardless of who is inciting violence. No special dispensation to anyone, certainly not religious nutjobs.Tartan Pixie said:
Carmonk said:
Firstly, your defence of Islam as relates to the rights of the individual.
Firstly, at no point did I defend or make excuses for islam. Secondly my respect for the rights of the individual are based on British values and have nothing to do with religion in any way. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.Tartan Pixie said:
Just to add that I hope all these posts are being taken in good spirit. These are important issues so it's good to have an open discussion and thanks to all for an interesting thread, even if it's a bit hard on the head at times. 
Absolutely. Most of this thread has been an attack on debate and not on the points raised so talking about the issues is actually quite refreshing.carmonk said:
No, because I've always made the distinction between Islam and Muslims when talking about the religion itself. So to answer your question my position is still option C
C) Isolate the ideology that makes them think bombing London is a good idea, then nullify it.
It's getting late so I'll just respond to this one point.C) Isolate the ideology that makes them think bombing London is a good idea, then nullify it.
You get a lot of credit if this is genuinely the case, however most people most people can not make such distinctions. If it becomes a majority view in the media that islam is the root of all extremism then we fuel the far right and people will be attacked or vilified just for looking a bit arabic.
I think the central position of UK politics could be described as liberal-anarco-cynic. AKA -> be nice to people-don't poke your nose in to my business-I reserve the right to call bulls
t on anything you say. As such being against islam goes against two of the main points of British politics, in that we're not being nice to some people (muslims) and we're poking our nose in to their business. Part three about cynicism still stands though.
I think it's important to frame the debate in these terms rather than concerns about suicide bombers or homophobia, which are religious worries not British worries. In other words I'm asking what is important to us and then applying it to islam rather than being frightened of islam and then applying it's worries to ourselves.
Slight tangent but I want to bring up Benjamin Libet again. Our current understanding of neuroscience is that a voltage occurs in the brain before we make a decision, the importance of this can be described in terms of pressing the A key on my keyboard:
What I perceive:
I'm sitting at a computer in full control of what I type.
I decide to press the A key.
What happens neurologically:
A voltage passes through my brain several milliseconds before I am aware of anything.
This triggers on two paths, one of which goes on the quick route through my amygdala (fight or flight responses) and the other goes through the long route in the neocortex which provides a sense of me.
The decision to press the A key rather than the F key is then defined by my neurology and any sense of 'me' being involved in this decision is purely an illusion.
One of the key lessons of Libet's work is that we function in a similar manner to a computer, our brain being the hardware and our experiences providing stimulus that writes the software. If he's correct then religious texts can be seen as similar to downloading an app to your brain, it is providing experience that acts as a computer program for your actions. (This is I think Carmonk's key point about dangers in the koran, though I still contest that the torah/old testament are just as bad).
I spoke earlier of a Darwin moment being provided by these insights and frankly it's going to hit us a lot quicker and harder than we think (hello siri, how fast will you evolve?). No one knows what the combination of AI/robotics/prosthetics/genetics will bring us but I do know two things for sure, the first computer to claim consciousness will blow religion out of the water and those who can will incorporate that tech in to their own bodies/minds.
Any ideology that is not equipped to deal with artificial intelligence will fail. Programs such as bible.exe and koran.exe will not be as functional as British.exe.
(Damn that was meant to be a short post, lol.)
Tartan Pixie said:
carmonk said:
No, because I've always made the distinction between Islam and Muslims when talking about the religion itself. So to answer your question my position is still option C
C) Isolate the ideology that makes them think bombing London is a good idea, then nullify it.
It's getting late so I'll just respond to this one point.C) Isolate the ideology that makes them think bombing London is a good idea, then nullify it.
You get a lot of credit if this is genuinely the case, however most people most people can not make such distinctions. If it becomes a majority view in the media that islam is the root of all extremism then we fuel the far right and people will be attacked or vilified just for looking a bit arabic.
I think the central position of UK politics could be described as liberal-anarco-cynic. AKA -> be nice to people-don't poke your nose in to my business-I reserve the right to call bulls
t on anything you say. As such being against islam goes against two of the main points of British politics, in that we're not being nice to some people (muslims) and we're poking our nose in to their business. Part three about cynicism still stands though.
I think it's important to frame the debate in these terms rather than concerns about suicide bombers or homophobia, which are religious worries not British worries. In other words I'm asking what is important to us and then applying it to islam rather than being frightened of islam and then applying it's worries to ourselves.
Tartan Pixie said:
Slight tangent but I want to bring up Benjamin Libet again. Our current understanding of neuroscience is that a voltage occurs in the brain before we make a decision, the importance of this can be described in terms of pressing the A key on my keyboard:
What I perceive:
I'm sitting at a computer in full control of what I type.
I decide to press the A key.
What happens neurologically:
A voltage passes through my brain several milliseconds before I am aware of anything.
This triggers on two paths, one of which goes on the quick route through my amygdala (fight or flight responses) and the other goes through the long route in the neocortex which provides a sense of me.
The decision to press the A key rather than the F key is then defined by my neurology and any sense of 'me' being involved in this decision is purely an illusion.
That's basically it although more recent experiments have detected the unconscious voltage up to 6 seconds before any action occurs. Same principle but stronger evidence. The way I phrase it is that the meat makes the decision and performs the action and the consciousness takes the credit. That doesn't go any way to explaining what consciousness is, but it does take away free will.What I perceive:
I'm sitting at a computer in full control of what I type.
I decide to press the A key.
What happens neurologically:
A voltage passes through my brain several milliseconds before I am aware of anything.
This triggers on two paths, one of which goes on the quick route through my amygdala (fight or flight responses) and the other goes through the long route in the neocortex which provides a sense of me.
The decision to press the A key rather than the F key is then defined by my neurology and any sense of 'me' being involved in this decision is purely an illusion.
Tartan Pixie said:
One of the key lessons of Libet's work is that we function in a similar manner to a computer, our brain being the hardware and our experiences providing stimulus that writes the software. If he's correct then religious texts can be seen as similar to downloading an app to your brain, it is providing experience that acts as a computer program for your actions. (This is I think Carmonk's key point about dangers in the koran, though I still contest that the torah/old testament are just as bad).
You might be right and maybe it's because I'm rushing but I can't quite see what you're saying.Tartan Pixie said:
I spoke earlier of a Darwin moment being provided by these insights and frankly it's going to hit us a lot quicker and harder than we think (hello siri, how fast will you evolve?). No one knows what the combination of AI/robotics/prosthetics/genetics will bring us but I do know two things for sure, the first computer to claim consciousness will blow religion out of the water and those who can will incorporate that tech in to their own bodies/minds.
I agree that religion is incompatible with any concept of AI but then again I think it's incompatible with any sort of logic-based process, including reasoned thought. It's OT (off-topic not Old Testament) of course but I reckon in another 3-5000 years biological humans will have ceased to exist and birth and death will be optional. Bodies and brains will be manufactured and modified to suit and no present-day ideology will remain.Tartan Pixie said:
Any ideology that is not equipped to deal with artificial intelligence will fail. Programs such as bible.exe and koran.exe will not be as functional as British.exe.
Religion is on its way out already, future innovations will just hasten that change. Some religions such as Islam are growing whilst others are fading away, but overall religion is dying. Thank God.carmonk said:
No, because I've always made the distinction between Islam and Muslims when talking about the religion itself. So to answer your question my position is still option C
C) Isolate the ideology that makes them think bombing London is a good idea, then nullify it.
How on earth do you intend to do this?C) Isolate the ideology that makes them think bombing London is a good idea, then nullify it.
how can you kill an idea?
Its a great idea but its basically impossible
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff