The most Dangerous Addiction

[GIThruster]

Might also say same of christophobia.

Only the grossly uninformed or atheists with an agenda would say the same things about Christianity and Islam. Plenty of us have pointed out the multitude of salient distinctions and you're still playing that pipe, Tom. When it comes to religion, you don't seem an honest man at all.

I think you mean that when it comes to religion I have different opinions from you.

No Tom. I mean that you're a dishonest man.

The point is that Islam is predicated upon hundreds of admonitions that require Jihad and global theocracy. It is completely unlike all other world religions. Despite this original point has been made obvious to you, you continue to press for the position that it is "islamaphobic" to hold such a position, and to mischaracterize those who do as not having made the conclusive arguments that they have. You're promoting a thoroughly dishonest position.

Just FYI, your reputation for good work in engineering says nothing about you as a person. Your dishonest arguments here say a great deal. You are not rational despite what you may pretend, and you are not honest. You are aggressively promoting an atheistic agenda despite having been told by Joe this will not be tolerated because it "is pure poison to a community like this".

How many times do you need to be told?

[tomclarke]

Only the grossly uninformed or atheists with an agenda would say the same things about Christianity and Islam. Plenty of us have pointed out the multitude of salient distinctions and you're still playing that pipe, Tom. When it comes to religion, you don't seem an honest man at all.

I think you mean that when it comes to religion I have different opinions from you.

No Tom. I mean that you're a dishonest man.

The point is that Islam is predicated upon hundreds of admonitions that require Jihad and global theocracy. You keep talking about the evolution of religions as if they were all headed toward the same atheistic position. I think you're an atheist despite your claims and that you've been dishonest about this too. I think you're a liar and that this becomes obvious when one looks at your religious arguments. They are all atheist. My problem with you is you're too much a coward to admit what you are, even in a forum like this surrounded by atheists.

Total respect fail.

GIT. While your respect is your own, and not my business, I object strenuously to being called dishonest. I will reply explicitly to any specific such complaint and defend my position or, if I reckon I've been mistaken, fess up.

And I don't think you have any standing to talk about dishonesty unless you are prepared to do the same.

I have no doubt there are many passages in the Quran about Jihad, just as in the Bible there are passages about killing Yahweh's enemies.

For your position to be tenable you would need to check with good Islamic scholars what Jihad means, what these passages mean, what they admonish. You have not done this here. I doubt you have tried. Also you have not posted these 100s of passages. I posted about 20 for Christianity (OT and Revelations) which were prima facie objectionable, but I know well they can be explained away on a non-literalist interpretation with good will.

And even if you did this, and posted here (by all means do, I will be interested) that is not my argument. I'm not saying Islam and Christianity are identically nice now. Just that labelling either "the evil religion" is stupid. Both have grown up enough to be major world religions, and to have many sects, some of which are estimable (the Christian Quakers) some of which are highly unpleasant (the Christian Jehovah's Witneses).

As for my being dishonest about my own religion that is particularly impolite. Have I questioned your faith? I will however say that if your behaiour in this debate is to be taken as Christian, then Christianity sucks. And that gross generalisation is at the level of your arguments.

You would know, had you read my posts here, that I tend to quote T.H. Huxley quite a lot and from that might work out what is my faith and why. I would not call myself an atheist because that is as much a faith position as being a theist. I am a true, strong, agnostic (which does indeed given all evidence look quite close to an athiest) not the lily-livered "can't make up their mind" sort. Like Huxley - who was a better man than you appear to be from this interchange by a very long way.

And for you to call my convictions cowardly on no evidence (it is just an assertion) is crass. I direct you to other topics where I have argued my corner whether it is popular or unpopular.

Finally your substantive argument:

Only the grossly uninformed or atheists with an agenda would say the same things about Christianity and Islam. Plenty of us have pointed out the multitude of salient distinctions and you're still playing that pipe, Tom.

You suffer here a logical failure.

There can be a multitude of similarities while also there are many salient distinctions. Your denial of the similarities is intellectual dishonesty or an inability to see beyond your own preconcepstions. The issue is whether the salient distinctions are so great as to amount to Islam being "an evil religion" as opposed to Christianity which (presumably) you think is "a good religion". I'm arguing that they are not so large, given the similarities.

I'm further arguing that the same scholarly "explaining away" of awful passages in the OT is applied to the awful passages in the Qu'ran. There are particular issues here of translation of the word Jihad.

I'm finally arguing that both religions in original form teach literal truth of a sacred text which is very objectionable regardless of the text. (I suppose you might manage a pure maths book about which literal belief was correct, but it would still be morally repugnant to take as given rather than work out for oneself).

I await your apology, for calling me a liar.

[tomclarke]

missed this:

You are aggressively promoting an atheistic agenda despite having been told by Joe this will not be tolerated because it "is pure poison to a community like this".

Joe objected to argument about religions in a news topic. He was right. You have no evidence that the objection was as you've stated so this argument is dishonest.

I will strongly (I hope not aggresively) defend the things I value. Specifically the merit of scientific understanding and its reality in an absolute sense.

My intervention in other other thread was a reaction to your appalling "my religion is good, yours is bad" statements about Islam vs Christianity. Both are much too large and varied to be so categorised. That is just common sense.

There was another point, subtlely different, that drove my intervention. However objectionable is or is not Islam, it is here to stay, just like Christianity. We can find the estimable or the horrible interpretations of Islam. By saying it is "an evil religion" you are saying the horrible interpreters are "true" the estimable ones are "false". That is an action of such extraordinary and dangerous stupidity it annoys me a lot.

And yes, I could do the same to Christianity, it would be equally stupid.

PS. A great friend of my wife, one of the nicest and most sensible people I know, is a committed Muslim. I'm sure most people can say the same.

[GIThruster]

Just that labelling either "the evil religion" is stupid

No Tom. It's well established for 1,400 years that Islam teaches global domination. It is completely unlike any other world religion. Just because you can't except this, doesn't mean the onus is on others to prove this to you. It is not. The world has 1,400 years direct experience and the obvious teaching and intent to bring the entire world under the rule of Allah.

This has no parallel in all human history. There are no other religions that have this intention to subjugate the planet.

When you bandy about the term "islamo-phobic" you are supporting this uniquely atheistic bullshit story that makes all religions out to be the same. You're pretending Islam is nothing to be concerned with and is like so many other religions. But the point is it is NOT like any other religions.

Your continued refusal to accept this, and to promote an atheistic rendering of the facts, clearly demonstrates you are not an honest man. I really don't care if hearing this upsets you. It's the truth.

[tomclarke]

Just that labelling either "the evil religion" is stupid

No Tom. It's well established for 1,400 years that Islam teaches global domination. It is completely unlike any other world religion. Just because you can't except this, doesn't mean the onus is on others to prove this to you. It is not. The world has 1,400 years direct experience and the obvious teaching and intent to bring the entire world under the rule of Allah.

This has no parallel in all human history. There are no other religions that have this intention to subjugate the planet.

When you bandy about the term "islamo-phobic" you are supporting this uniquely atheistic bullshit story that makes all religions out to be the same. You're pretending Islam is nothing to be concerned with and is like so many other religions. But the point is it is NOT like any other religions.

Your continued refusal to accept this, and to promote an atheistic rendering of the facts, clearly demonstrates you are not an honest man. I really don't care if hearing this upsets you. It's the truth.

I'm waiting. I don't accept argument by assertion.

[choff]

More on eugenics from the 1911 Scientific American, (back when it was considered a respectable journal),

The proper attitude to be taken toward the perpetuation of poor types is that which has been attributed to [Thomas Henry] Huxley. “We are sorry for you,” he is reported to have said; “we will do our best for you (and in so doing we elevate ourselves, since mercy blesses him that gives and him that takes), but we deny you the right to parentage. You may live, but you must not propagate.”

[GIThruster]

Thus spake Tom's "eminently moral" atheist.

And just FYI to anyone interested in this discussion: there is no onus upon any person caught up in lively debate to prove facts that are obvious and available to everyone. Anyone opening a single book on comparative religion, anyone remotely acquainted with world history, anyone who has opened the Koran for himself, anyone who watches the nightly news from the Islamic world, knows that those of us who oppose the world domination of Islam--the "Great Satan"--are considered such specifically BECAUSE Islam teaches world domination. Even the term "Islam" means "submission".

There is on onus upon me or anyone else to do more than call attention to the obvious facts. When people like Tom deny these facts in order to promote their own twisted agenda, they are dishonest people, acting dishonestly and with dishonest intentions that are not worthy of an answer.

[tomclarke]

More on eugenics from the 1911 Scientific American, (back when it was considered a respectable journal),

The proper attitude to be taken toward the perpetuation of poor types is that which has been attributed to [Thomas Henry] Huxley. “We are sorry for you,” he is reported to have said; “we will do our best for you (and in so doing we elevate ourselves, since mercy blesses him that gives and him that takes), but we deny you the right to parentage. You may live, but you must not propagate.”

The above third-hand (fourth-hand? who can tell) out of context quote - in fact not even that. It is the claim by a rabid eugenicist (the SA editor at that time) that this comment is "attributed to THH". It does not get us anywhere, we cannot tell of what he was referring, or even whether the comment ever was made.

I have searched the source literature for Huxley's comments on eugenics. The single quote that has been taken by some (in later years) to indicate his support comes from a great speech he made in the second ever Romanes Lcture at Oxford, reproduced below. You can see that in context this is in no way problematic, even to modern hyper-attuned susceptibilities.

• In 1893, Thomas Henry Huxley gave the second ever Romanes Lecture at Oxford University. It was entitled ‘Evolution & Ethics’. In this lecture, delivered in some of the finest of 19th century prose, Huxley presented one of the most clear rebukes given then and since against the coarse injection of evolution into ethics. Even though I’m of the belief that evolution is central to a complete understanding of morality, Huxley’s arguments still stand, and I hold them in the highest regard. Here are a few snippets with which anyone interested in the intersection of evolution and ethics should be familiar:
  
  “But as the immoral sentiments have no less been evolved, there is, so far, as much natural sanction for the one as the other. The thief and murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before. Some day, I doubt not, we shall arrive at an understanding of the evolution of the aesthetic faculty; but all the understanding in the world will neither increase nor diminish the force of the intuition that this is beautiful and that is ugly.”
  
  “There is another fallacy which appears to me to pervade the so-called ‘ethics of evolution.’ It is that notion that because, on the whole, animals and plants have advanced in perfection of organization by means of the struggle for existence and the consequent ‘survival of the fittest’; therefore men in society, men as ethical beings, must look to the same process to help them towards perfection. I suspect that this fallacy has arisen out of the unfortunate ambiguity of the phrase ‘survival of the fittest.’ ‘Fittest’ has a connotation of ‘best’; and about ‘best’ there hangs a moral flavour’. In cosmic nature, however, what is ‘fittest’ depends upon the conditions. long since, I ventured to point out that if our hemisphere were to cool again, the survival of the fittest might bring about, in the vegetable kingdom, a population of more and more stunted and humbler and humbler organisms, until the ‘fittest’ that survived might be nothing but lichens, diatoms, and such microscopic organisms as those which give red snow its colour; while, if it became hotter, the pleasant valleys of the Thames and Isis might be uninhabitable by any animated beings save those that flourish in a tropical jungle. They, as the fittest, the best adapted to the changed conditions, would survive.”
  
  “Social progress means a checking of the cosmic process at every step and the substitution for it of another, which may be called the ethical process; the end of which is not the survival of those who may happen to be the fittest, in respect of the whole of the conditions which obtain, but of those who are ethically the best.”
  
  “As I have already urged, the practice of that which is ethically best – what we call goodness or virtue – involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence. In place of ruthless self-assertion it demands self-restraint; in place of thrusting aside, or treading down, all competitors, it requires that the individual shall not merely respect, but shall help his fellows; its influence is directed, not so much to the survival of the fittest, as tho the fitting of as many as possible to survive. It repudiates the gladiatorial theory of existence. It demands that each man who enters into the enjoyment of the advantages of a polity shall be mindful of his debt to those who have laboriously constructed it; and shall take heed that no act of his weakens the fabric in which he has been permitted to live. Laws and moral precepts are directed to the end of curbing the cosmic process and reminding the individual of his duty to the community, to the protection and influence of which he owes, if not existence itself, at least the life of something better than a brutal savage.”
  
  “Let us understand, once and for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.”
  
  And one final note: Huxley was not only a great biologist, natural philosopher and defender of evolution, but he was one of the rare English thinkers of his time to give great credence to Eastern thinkers. Here is just one insightful passage from Evolution and Ethics that hints at his surprisingly nuanced view of Indian philosophy, and at his ability to weave that into a distinctly English narrative:
  
  “The earlier forms of Indian philosophy agreed with those prevalent in our own times, in supposing the existence of a permanent reality, or ‘substance,’ beneath the shifting series of phenomena, whether of matter or of mind. The substance of the cosmos was ‘Brahma’, that of the individual man ‘Atman’; and the latter was separated from the former only, if I may so speak, but its phenomenal envelope, by the casing of sensations, thoughts and desires, pleasures and pains, which make up the illusive phantasmagoria of life. This the ignorant take for reality; their ‘Atman’ therefore remains eternally imprisoned in delusions, bound by the fetters if desire and scourged by the whip of misery. But the man who has attained enlightenment sees that the apparent reality is mere illusion, or, as was said a couple of thousand years later, that there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so.”

[tomclarke]

Here BTW is an interesting modern comment on eugenics which avoids knee-jerk polemicism:

Eugenics has a bad rap. All that talk of selective breeding (or sterilising) of people in order to improve the human stock or purify races is terribly distasteful today – and for good reason. However, I wonder if we’re already bringing a kind of eugenics back with modern day genetic testing. And if so, maybe this, much more temperate, version of eugenics is acceptable, or perhaps even good.

Prenatal testing and embryo testing for hereditary genetic abnormalities and disorders is on the rise. We now have the technology to not only determine whether an embryo or a foetus carries a genetic defect that will result in a life threatening disease or disorder, or even one that will severely compromise standard of living, but we can even screen embryos before they’re implanted through IVF.

Certainly, there are broad grey areas over when and in what circumstances such testing can occur – I’m not about to debate these issues – but I am assuming that such tests, in some form, are likely to continue. And, by continuing, we will further have the ability to screen embryos that carry such disorders.

If, by doing so, we reduce the representation in the human gene pool of genes that cause certain disorders, and we do so willingly, then, in a manner of speaking, we’re engaging in a kind of eugenics. Not the kind that attempts to selectively breed (or genetically engineer) to seek out or enhance certain phenotypic traits, but the kind that ends up reducing the frequency of some undesirable traits. One needn’t even start allowing parents to select traits, like eye colour or height, for this weak form of eugenics to hold.

Put this way, my initial suspicion surrounding eugenics gives way slightly to the prospect that this might even be a good thing. But there are still issues, like that we might be inadvertently reducing our genetic diversity, and this could prove problematic down the track.

There are very few (if any) genes that affect only one thing. Genes code for proteins or RNA, and these proteins and RNA can perform multiple tasks and interact with other proteins or RNA in complex ways. Reducing the frequency of one gene in a population might have unforseen side effects. One need only observe the problems that arise when genetic diversity drops significantly – such as in so-called founder populations – to see the ill effects of a lack of diversity.

Then there’s heterozygosity, such as with sickle-cell anemia. It’s a genetic disorder that is inherited if an individual receives two copies of the mutant haemoglobin gene; if an individual possesses only one, the non-mutant is dominant, so sickle-cell anemia doesn’t develop. Furthermore, heterozygous individuals – those who have a mutant and non-mutant gene – gain some resistance against malaria. Eradicating the mutant gene from the population could have a negative effect in terms of malaria resistance. That said, if homozygotes were screened, that alone wouldn’t remove the mutant gene from the population.

I doubt this will ever be a simple black and white issue. There are likely to be plenty of cases where prenatal testing will reveal some non-inherited genetic abnormality, such as Down syndrome, which is not a heritable disorder (although individuals with Down syndrome can have children – if rarely – and they are more likely to carry the syndrome). And we can employ limits and precautions on how we treat the presence of heritable diseases or disorders – or the presence of genes that might increase the chance of a particular disease or disorder. With some cautious use, we might lower the proportion of genes in the population that cause these problems, but not eradicate them altogether.

I don’t know if you’d call that eugenics – admittedly it is a stretch – but even if it is, with some caution, it might actually be a good thing.

[tomclarke]

Thus spake Tom's "eminently moral" atheist.

OK. I've replied to the suggestion that Thomas Huxley was an immoral eugenicist. Adequately I hope. Certainly with enough substance to refute this fourth-hand quote made out of context.

And just FYI to anyone interested in this discussion: there is no onus upon any person caught up in lively debate to prove facts that are obvious and available to everyone.

I hope for a more rigorous level of debate here, but the above comment makes it seem unlikley I will get it. It is BTW inapplicable. Unless you deny me personhood (presumably because an atheistically-inclined agnostic in your world view has no soul) the premise of your argument - that such facts are obvious to everyone - is trivially false.

Even the term "Islam" means "submission".

I know wikipedia is not always reliable but it is generally pretty good and is the best I can do at short notice, not being a linguist myself:

Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, completion and bonding/joining.[17] In a religious context it means "voluntary submission to God".[18][19] Muslim, the word for an adherent of Islam, is the active participle of the same verb of which Islām is the infinitive. Believers demonstrate submission to God by serving God and following his commands, and rejecting polytheism. The word sometimes has distinct connotations in its various occurrences in the Qur'an. In some verses (ayat), there is stress on the quality of Islam as an internal conviction: "Whomsoever God desires to guide, He expands his breast to Islam."[20] Other verses connect islām and dīn (usually translated as "religion"): "Today, I have perfected your religion (dīn) for you; I have completed My blessing upon you; I have approved Islam for your religion."[21] Still others describe Islam as an action of returning to God—more than just a verbal affirmation of faith.[22]

Do I need to draw attention to the contrast between lazy and polemic use of language, and a more considered reading? Polemics are all very well - and though they can sometimes seem literally dishonest it is understandable that people tend to present the best side of their case. I find less acceptable the rejection of more detailed factual argument on the basis only of a polemical assertion. That has happened in some of GIT's posts on this and the other thread.

When people like Tom deny these facts in order to promote their own twisted agenda, they are dishonest people, acting dishonestly and with dishonest intentions that are not worthy of an answer.

There are some problems with this comment. "People like Tom"? I think the implication in context is "people who are by nature dishonest like Tom". If you read back at my posts I have I believe not once insulted GIT. My comments, while strong, have I hope always clearly related to his posts or arguments. Personally, I have never met him. And we are all capable of posting rubbish on a bad day.

Generalising from "I think this specific argument is dishonest" to "I think this person is dishonest" is unwarranted and unhelpful. In fact it is wrong for the same type of reason that racism, anti-semitism, christophobia are wrong. People are very prone to ignore details and attribute to others stereotypical charcteristics (usually wrong) of a group. Whether it is generalising from action (this was a bad (unforgivable) act) to person (you are a bad (unforgivable) person) or from person (you are a moneygrubber) to group (you are a Jew and therefore a moneygrubber) it is profoundly disrespectful.

It is exactly the opposite of what Christ demonstrated through his life and words. In fact it is a very profoundly unChristian action.

I suggest, GIT, that you take a deep breath, and demonstrate in your actions on this thread the merits of your own Christian religion.

Frankly, there are many here (e.g. dioneges) who have on occasion posted what seems to me total rubbish. That does not mean they are rubbish people, or that I might not agree with something else they post. But I'll call rubbish rubbish.

I'll let the content of this thread stand as a record of who has been twisting words.

Best wishes, Tom

[paperburn1]

Now to amuse myself and offend others
These new gods amuse me.Early in the 20th century, Gerald Massey argued that there are similarities between the Egyptian god Horus and Jesus
Jesus Born of the virgin Mary
Horus Born of the virgin ISIS\
Jesus Star led three wise men to him when he was born
Horus Star led three wise men to him when he was born
Jesus Taken to Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod
Horus Taken to Egypt to escape the wrath of Typhon
Jesus Taught in the temple as a child
Horus Taught in the temple as a child
Jesus Baptized by john the Baptist at age of 30
Horus Baptized by ANP the baptizer at age 30
Jesus and Horus Has twelve disciples and titles include the way,The truth, The light,The Messiah, son of man , lamb of god(s)
Jesus Preform miracles and walked on water
Horus Preform miracles and walked on water
Jesus Raised Lazarus from the dead and was transfigured on a mount
Horus Raised al-azur-us from the dead and was transfigured on a mount
Jesus and Horus both crucified and raised from the dead
Please note I do not say that there was no Jesus there is adequate historical evidence to prove his existence I am only pointing out the similarity's in tales attributed to him.
Let the Reindeer games begin !

[choff]

That's an excellent answer Tom, but ordinary people still have their reasons for being nervous. I've read Brave New World by Aldous, and Julian was talking about eugenics at UNESCO right after WW2. While at the UN Julian was also involved in enviromentalism, this makes people put both together.

The problem comes when high minded people with the best of intentions have their ideas taken up by lower minded people of mixed motives. It's then that the road to Hell gets paved, and like everything else in life, the little people get stuck with the bill.

From where I'm looking, you're dispute with GIT looks like an arguement over semantics. Perhaps both of you could put your points of disagreement in short, plainwritten bulletpoints, readers often don't have the time to dissect the more verbose exchanges.

[tomclarke]

That's an excellent answer Tom, but ordinary people still have their reasons for being nervous. I've read Brave New World by Aldous, and Julian was talking about eugenics at UNESCO right after WW2. While at the UN Julian was also involved in enviromentalism, this makes people put both together.

OK - this is a misunderstanding. Thomas Huxley is not Julian Huxley. Yes, Julian was I believe keen on eugenics.

The problem comes when high minded people with the best of intentions have their ideas taken up by lower minded people of mixed motives. It's then that the road to Hell gets paved, and like everything else in life, the little people get stuck with the bill.

From where I'm looking, you're dispute with GIT looks like an arguement over semantics. Perhaps both of you could put your points of disagreement in short, plainwritten bulletpoints, readers often don't have the time to dissect the more verbose exchanges.

That may be.

I tended to argue religious stuff on style. Because, scientifically, I have nothing directly to say about religion and though I have strong moral principles these are not faith based. This is different from an atheist - one of my close friends at Uni was an atheist who 10 years after became converted to evangelical Christian. I predicted this when we were close friends because of the vehemence of his skeptical stance. It was too strong to be truly skeptical, even though I agreed intellectually with his assessments, I did not have his compelling need to disprove others. He needed belief.

But I have friends who are Muslim and also I know how much good and bad has been done by all great world religions. So when I hear "Islam is a uniquely evil religion" my hackles go up.

Also, I have a profound dislike of all the fundamental religious stuff which asks people to abandon their own judgement and do what somone else tells them: whether a leader or a book. It is the root of all evil. You see it in variants of all religions - equally people of true faith will be struggling with their own consciences and clear that they are making decisions themselves, not following somone else. It is a subtle distinction and religious language (always about obedience to the will of God) begs the question because it depends on how you conceive God which is a very personal thing.

Finally, I enjoy internet debates, they are fun. And I don't easily get insulted. But when somone calls me dishonest I'll fight my corner, till I win or realise that yes in fact I was irrationally biassed. We all have biasses, make mistakes, etc. And sometimes the disagreements come from fundamental differences that cannot be reconciled. For example, diogenes and I will never in a month of Sundays see eye to eye about some of his views. But being dishonest is something I do my best (however good that is) to avoid.

Best wishes, Tom

[Diogenes]

For example, diogenes and I will never in a month of Sundays see eye to eye about some of his views. But being dishonest is something I do my best (however good that is) to avoid.

Best wishes, Tom

Which views are those? Reassessment is a constant effort for me. A list would be nice.


I regard myself as quite objective, though many of you will not think so.

[tomclarke]

For example, diogenes and I will never in a month of Sundays see eye to eye about some of his views. But being dishonest is something I do my best (however good that is) to avoid.

Best wishes, Tom

Which views are those? Reassessment is a constant effort for me. A list would be nice.


I regard myself as quite objective, though many of you will not think so.

I remember commenting on a few. If you continue posting I'll let you know...